Discussion Title: Should humans act to fight climate change?

1. Humans should act to fight climate change.
1.1. Con: Climate change is a natural phenomenon not caused by humans, so they aren't responsible for fighting it.
1.1.1. Con: The data clearly indicates pronounced detrimental changes in the climate since the industrial revolution.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Accurate measures of the increase in Earth's temperature are correlated with recent increases in CO2 levels.
1.1.1.1.1. Con: CO₂ is not the only gas in question. [Methane](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WgyZ92hSyCg), for instance, traps heat far better than CO₂, even if it only lasts a decade in the atmosphere.
1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, are produced in abundance by natural processes.
1.1.1.1.1.1.1. Con: "Natural" CO₂ emissions are part of what is called the "closed cycle" of chemical distribution in the atmosphere. The closed cycle is CO₂ and oxygen that is continuously used by the environment, i.e.: plants that absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere. Additional CO₂ emissions can not be absorbed by the closed cycle without massive increases in tree populations. As it is, [the closed cycle can only absorb ~40% of human emissions.](https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm) The parent topic refers to climate change caused by humans.
1.1.1.1.2. Con: Higher temperatures increase the [degassing of oceans](https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/), and by that increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
1.1.1.1.3. Con: The thesis suggests that linking changes in the climate with human activity is the hard part, not whether or not the climate is changing.
1.1.1.1.3.1. Con: The linkage between changing climate and human activity is well-established.  Most of the natural "forcings" \(solar irradiance, Milankovitch, etc\) would be driving the climate slightly cooler, now, contrary to what is observed.  Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations are the result of human activity \(confirmed several different ways\), and the physics of GHG are well understood.
1.1.1.1.4. Pro: [Human CO2 production exceeds the natural absorption of the global ecosystem by ~15 Gigatonnes per year](https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm). This is enough to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 parts per million in the last 120 years. This change normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years to occur.
1.1.1.1.4.1. Con: CO₂ is not only produced by humans.
1.1.1.1.4.1.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.
1.1.1.1.5. Pro: The rise in [deforestation](https://www.carbonbrief.org/deforestation-has-driven-up-hottest-day-temperatures) since the industrial revolution has driven up global temperatures.
1.1.1.1.6. Con: Correlation does not imply causation.
1.1.1.1.6.1. Pro: The correlation isnt straightforward - for example there is ample evidence of a slowdown or '[hiatus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus)' in warming during the early part of the 21st Century. Clouds, albedo, snow and other phenomenon exhibit non-linear chaotic behaviour making it extremely difficult to predict or project climate change.
1.1.1.1.6.1.1. Con: Current best estimates of the energy imbalance are on the order of 0.5 W/m^2.  There is no evidence for a "hiatus" in this forcing.  Fluctuations in average temperatures at the surface are understood to be the result of [vagaries of heat exchange](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897) with the massive [thermal inertia of the oceans](https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf).
1.1.1.1.6.1.1.1. Con: If this were true then then it'd be important to know the ocean heat content of the Earth before industrialisation in order to be able to attribute warming to CO2.
1.1.1.1.6.1.1.1.1. Pro: [Studies of heat distribution in the oceans](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1553) provide a basis for attributing ocean heating to external \(anthropogenic\) forcing.
1.1.1.1.6.1.1.2. Pro: The distribution of heat in the oceans supports [reconstruction of historical rates of heat uptake](https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1126).
1.1.1.1.6.2. Con: The correlation of global temperatures and atmospheric constituents is [directly measurable](https://scied.ucar.edu/molecular-vibration-modes), predicted accurately through models, and is consistent with our physical understanding of the properties of these systems and constituents. \(For example, we know the materials properties of why CO2 traps heat, which is consistent with these models and measurements.\)
1.1.1.2. Con: According to the IPCC, temperatures have only increased approximately 0.85° in 130 years \([IPCC, p. 2](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf)\). While there has been a change, and much could be attributed to man-kind, it isn't that significant.
1.1.1.2.1. Con: Since about the [1950s](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate/climate-and-extreme-weather)(The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report \(2014\) showed that changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950.), changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed.
1.1.1.2.1.1. Con: Apparent changes in weather events since the 1950s have coincided with advances in recording and distributing news. Thus, it may be that we are more aware of climactic patterns and events rather than that they have worsened.
1.1.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: To fully understand the change in the climate you need to read intensive scientific paper. All the proof is there but it is complicated.
1.1.1.2.2. Con: According to comprehensive climate models, surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. \(scenarios include a stringent mitigation scenario, two intermediate scenarios, and one with very high greenhouses gas emissions\). [www.ipcc.ch](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf) p.56
1.1.1.2.3. Con: The same source shows the vast majority of that change happening since 1970. So at that rate the change could reach multiple degrees within a few decades, which is very significant.
1.1.1.3. Pro: There is [evidence](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming) that the current climate trajectory is out of the ordinary for the climate.
1.1.1.3.1. Pro: As the [Earth](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming) moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
1.1.2. Con: Even if it is natural, humans should act to avoid detrimental effects.
1.1.2.1. Con: The current magnitude of climate change isn't unusual compared to earlier changes in Earth’s history.
1.1.2.1.1. Con: The changes aren't unprecedented \(on geological scales\), but science indicates that current changes are caused by human activity.
1.1.2.1.2. Con: Temperatures in France have reached [45.9C](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48795264), which has never happened before.
1.1.2.1.3. Pro: The Paris Accord uses a pre-industrial baseline temperature based on the mid- to late-1800s. However, in the [palaeoclimatological context of the last 10,000 years](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2017.00104/full), those decades were especially cold. This means the temperature increases appear inflated.
1.1.2.1.3.1. Pro: An [example](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/290/5494/1145) of temperature shifts in the past, unrelated to anthropogenic climate change.
1.1.2.1.3.1.1. Con: Present-day changes in ocean temperature are [not the result of natural variability](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053262).
1.1.2.1.3.2. Pro: Temperature Variability in the [South Pacific](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/290/5494/1145) from the 18th to the 21st century was unrelated to humans.
1.1.2.1.3.3. Con: The absolute temperature target adopted in Paris still stands; the value of the baseline is purely academic. Exceeding this target will exceed natural historical temperature variations.
1.1.2.1.3.3.1. Pro: The [linked](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2017.00104/full) article in the grandparent claim concludes "Notably, re-definition of the temperature baseline does not affect the upper temperature ceiling of the 2° target because it corresponds to the high temperatures of the last interglacial."
1.1.2.1.4. Pro: The Earth's climate has natural cycles of warmer and colder temperatures, the recent changes are simply a part of this natural cycle as we are [between two ice ages](https://www.gi.alaska.edu/alaska-science-forum/are-we-living-warm-peak-between-ice-ages).
1.1.2.1.4.1. Con: [Solar output data](https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html) shows it isn't responsible for the recent warming.
1.1.2.1.4.2. Pro: The world's ice core temperature and carbon dioxide levels have [fluctuated regularly](https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/003.jpg) throughout the past 800,000 years.
1.1.2.1.4.2.1. Con: [Data](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AvHDqDa2Wg0/UIxZFFt2OPI/AAAAAAAABQI/ZfeV13JtSD0/s1600/vostok-temp-vs-co2.gif) shows clearly that atmospheric temperature correlate with atmospheric CO2 concentration.
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.1. Con: This graph is over geological timescales, and does not necessarily correlate CO₂ with Temperature - having CO₂ as the cause for temperature rise. The reason for this is that the geological timescales present here and the rise and fall of global temperature are believed to be attributed to Milankovitch cycles NOT CO₂ - where the sun and earth distance changes over time. [Milankovitch Cycles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles) ..
1.1.2.1.4.2.1.2. Con: Correlation is not causation.
1.1.2.1.4.2.2. Con: There is a [massive amount of evidence](https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm) that anthropogenic CO₂ is warming the planet. In essence, CO₂ is a major Greenhouse Gas, CO₂ has been increasing over the past 150 years, temperature has been increasing, and we cannot explain this increase by natural variation alone, but we can explain it by including CO₂.
1.1.2.1.4.3. Con: The recent changes are largely due to anthropogenic emissions of non-biogenic greenhouse gases through deforestation and [fossil fuel burning](https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/). We cannot control natural cycles, but we can control our own emissions.
1.1.2.1.4.3.1. Pro: "Human activity is increasing the amount of greenhouse gases \(except water vapour\) and hence [increasing their impact](http://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-4-ecology/44-climate-change/greenhouse-gases.html)".
1.1.2.1.4.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.1.2.1.4.3.3. Con: There is competing evidence about the amount and severity of warming caused by man-made CO2. The scientific community has produced a wide range of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities \(ECSs\) for the doubling of CO2, ranging [from 1.5 to 4.5°C](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity), and current satellite temperature records indicate a [warming rate of 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures). The climate system is so complex, even the IPCC have declared that future climate projection is too difficult.
1.1.2.1.4.3.3.1. Con: [The models](https://phys.org/news/2017-12-more-severe-climate-accurate.html) that are doing the best job of matching ongoing observations are also the ones that predict greater ECS.
1.1.2.1.4.4. Pro: There are multiple examples of climate shifts similar to today.
1.1.2.1.4.4.1. Pro: The "[little ice age](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/29/little-ice-age)", dating from around 1300 to the mid-1800s, was the coldest interval over the Northern Hemisphere for one thousand or so years.
1.1.2.1.4.4.1.1. Pro: The [Little Ice Age](https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age) - part of this supposed 'ideal climate' led to mass starvation, disease and poverty plus huge amounts of human casualties and deaths throughout Europe.
1.1.2.1.4.4.1.1.1. Con: In the Little Ice Age, humans were not as techologically developed as they are now.
1.1.2.1.4.4.2. Pro: The ‘[Roman Classical Period](https://www.thegwpf.com/the-roman-warm-period-vs-the-current-warm-period/)’ temperatures were similar or slightly higher than those of today with the highest temperatures reached between around 400 BC and 0 AD,”.
1.1.2.1.4.4.2.1. Con: The temperature anomaly of the current change is expected to grow significantly, even if we cease emissions today, and to continue rising for a longer period, the more emissions we produce. That's different.
1.1.2.1.4.4.2.2. Pro: The relatively high temperatures reconstructed during the Roman Period are consistent with a reduced glacier extent in the Alps.
1.1.2.1.4.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.3.1.
1.1.2.1.4.4.4. Con: Whether there have been similar changes in temperature in the past is irrelevant, if this one is primarily caused by humans. There may have been forest fires before humans, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether humans are responsible for a present one.
1.1.2.1.4.4.5. Con: The Holocene climatic optimum \(HCO\) has been proven to be caused by changes in the [earth's orbit](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/mid-holocene-warm-period), and it is known that this is not the cause of recent warming.
1.1.2.1.4.5. Con: It has been demonstrated that recent shifts in climate do not follow \([even closely](https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/)\) the previous natural cycles of climate change. It is anomalous and directly correlates with human industrial activity.
1.1.2.1.4.5.1. Con: -> See 1.1.2.1.4.4.
1.1.2.1.4.6. Con: In the past century, the [Earth has warmed](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php) "roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
1.1.2.1.4.6.1. Con: It is true but also irrelevant that the current warming is 10x faster than ice-age recovery. Ice-age recovery is due primarily to orbital forcing changes which happen over thousands of years. This does not mean other climatic shifts have happened in the past over much shorter timescales. Even in the current Holocene times there's plenty of records of much faster and larger climatic shifts. [Holocene Climate Variability](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589404000870)
1.1.2.1.4.6.1.1. Con: The referenced article refers to extremely short time periods - blips on the geological radar. They are irrelevant to this discussion.
1.1.2.1.4.6.1.2. Con: The article refers to periods with polar cooling - irrelevant to the present situation where we have polar warming.
1.1.2.1.5. Con: -> See 1.1.2.1.4.6.
1.1.2.1.6. Pro: A large scientific research on the temperatures of the Medieval Climate Anomaly \(1000-1200AD\) suggest much of the Earth was as warm or warmer than current climate. This bringing into question the causes, severity and necessary response due to modern warming. [Medieval Climate Anomaly Map](https://www.researchgate.net/project/Mapping-the-Medieval-Climate-Anomaly)
1.1.2.1.6.1. Con: The "[Medieval Warming Period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period)" is a conventional term to refer to a loose collection of localized events.  There was no increase in global average temperature on the scale of what is observed today, nor does the WMP invoke any doubt about the causes or severity of modern warming.
1.1.2.1.6.2. Con: Global temperature reconstructions show there was no globally synchronous warming during the medieval period and current temperatures [are higher](https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797) than at any time in the past 2000 years.
1.1.2.2. Pro: Warmer weather is not necessarily better.
1.1.2.2.1. Pro: Warmer winters can cause beneficial insects to come out of hibernation too quickly, only to [starve](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-bugged-life-warm-winter-could-mean-more-insects/2012/03/07/gIQA5b033R_story.html?utm_term=.3e2cc55dec2b) due to the lack of flowering plants.
1.1.2.2.2. Pro: Warmer winters allow pests to flourish, with potentially [damaging consequences](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-bugged-life-warm-winter-could-mean-more-insects/2012/03/07/gIQA5b033R_story.html?utm_term=.3e2cc55dec2b&noredirect=on) for farmers.
1.1.2.2.2.1. Con: Other animals start to thrive when there are additional pests that eat those pests, this is how the food chain operates.
1.1.2.2.2.1.1. Con: Warmer winters have allowed the Southern Pine Beetle to survive winter in greater numbers, and to expand its range, [wiping out swaths of forest](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3375) in the process. There has been no compensating rise of predators to prevent the destruction.
1.1.3. Pro: Global climate is a dynamic system that corrects itself when interfered with.
1.1.3.1. Con: Temperatures could remain the same or rise for centuries even after carbon emissions [stop cold turkey](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2060).
1.1.3.2. Con: Even if we consider the risk of the system not correcting itself as low, the severity of the outcome is extreme. We may not want to take that gamble.
1.1.3.3. Con: This idea of a self-correcting system was prevalent in climatological circles in the 1940s, but has been superseded by scientific progress. See "Basic Ideas, Right and Wrong", here, in [Spencer Weart's Discovery of Climatology.](https://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm)
1.1.3.4. Pro: [Carbon sinks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink) store CO2.
1.1.3.4.1. Con: Climate change may make carbon sinks [less effective](https://www.climatecentral.org/news/forests-and-oceans-help-store-carbon-but-are-vulnerable-to-climate-change).
1.1.3.5. Pro: A recent study published in AGU has shown that an increase in warming creates more cloud cover which in turn reduces the warming effect - signs the Earth [does regulate](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL081046) its own temperature.
1.1.3.5.1. Con: The referenced study is careful to affirm that its conclusions apply only to short-term, local effects, which it contrasts with global trends in the opposite direction. Therefore, this study explicitly argues against the idea of global negative feedback from increasing cloud cover. [Other](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract) [studies](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672) suggest that global feedback effects are [likely positive](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523).
1.1.3.5.2. Con: Water vapor is one of the strongest greenhouse gases, so it cuts both ways. While some heat energy might not get through, the Earth is much more insulated and will cool much slower.
1.1.4. Pro: The data on human-caused climate change is not definitive.
1.1.4.1. Pro: A panel \(the IPCC\) whose existence is based on the postulate that climate change is real should not be taken as the only reference point for climate change studies. Actions against climate change may be based on the wrong assumptions.
1.1.4.2. Con: -> See discussion #18139: The science of human-induced climate change is largely settled.
1.1.4.3. Con: Nothing in science is exactly definitive. The point is to come to a reasonable conclusion based on current and known information.
1.1.4.4. Con: All fields of knowledge will continue to have questions. The concept in question is not about absolute or definitive knowledge, which is never complete, but rather conclusions based on the data that is available so far. The scientific community is in consensus about certain factors of climate change, including that [recent climate change is predominantly cause by human influence.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)
1.1.4.5. Pro: Several non-IPCC researchers are publishing data that shows no sign of particular climate change with respect to past centuries \(see e.g. [non-hockey stick graphs review](http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/#sthash.T7AElZn8.dpbs)\).
1.1.4.5.1. Con: The link is a collection of figures snipped from papers, with minimal context.  Several of the captions point out that it was warm in the Roman Warm Period, and during the so-called Medieval Warm Period.  These ideas might be attractive to denialists, but they do nothing to contradict the well-established facts regarding the modern rapid increase in global average temperature due to human activity.
1.1.4.5.2. Con: The sources shows graph from some particular regions. Yes there is places in the world that are not warming and even cooling. That's climate change. But, this is misleading because the global trend does indicate a rapid warming.
1.1.4.5.3. Con: Those result will simply be included in the next IPCC if they are relevant

[The number of sources cited in the Fifth Assessment Report will total many thousands. This is an indication of the extensive literature base on which IPCC reports and their conclusions are built.](http://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_assess.pdf)
1.1.4.5.4. Con: In the last 2 years we saw numerous heat records and hundreds of floods caused by heavy rains. Many of these events are unprecendented in the human history and we might see even stranger things \(see for example: [public.wmo.int](https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/state-of-climate-2017-%E2%80%93-extreme-weather-and-high-impacts) or [public.wmo.int](https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/state-of-climate-record-heat-and-weather-extremes)\)
1.1.5. Pro: The climate is known to exhibit chaotic behavior \(in the mathematical/scientific sense\) and is very difficult to link effect with cause.
1.1.5.1. Pro: Climate predictions are not simply built on '[statistics](https://futurism.com/climate-change-projections-are-based-on-hard-scientific-data)'. The Earth's weather systems are far too complex to have enough data to draw statistical conclusions on future climate changes.
1.1.5.2. Con: -> See 1.1.2.1.4.2.1.
1.1.5.3. Con: Earth climate is a physical system, so all changes must have a physical cause. We do not have perfect understanding, but we have substantial understanding of the causes: orbital changes, solar cycles, ocean current cycles, volcanoes, greenhouse gas changes, albedo changes, maybe even cosmic ray changes.
1.1.5.4. Con: Meaningful and true claims and understandings can still be made about complex systems.
1.1.5.4.1. Pro: There is a well-established mathematical/scientific field dedicated to the study of [complex systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system).  Here's a simple example: though you can't predict how many connections any given member of a social network may have, it has been observed that the distribution of numbers of connections of all the members of the network will exhibit a power-law.
1.1.5.4.2. Con: A generalist statement like this makes no disagreement to the claim at hand, because it is a generalistic statement about an unspecified system.
1.1.5.4.3. Pro: Even in seemingly chaotic systems, a tendency can be observed; in this case, it is clear that the climate is becoming less suitable for humans. This is marked by increased rate of [desertification](https://www.prb.org/resources/whats-behind-desertification/), global temperature [rising](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature), weather [extremes](https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world) more often, etc.
1.1.5.5. Pro: Even the last 100 years has seen periods, between 1880-1910 & 1940-1980, where the surface temperatures do not correlate with CO2 rising.
1.1.5.5.1. Con: The science of greenhouse gases is well-understood, and there is no doubt that increasing CO2 has caused the climate to gain heat at a steadily-increasing rate. Variations in rate at which surface temperatures have increased are understood to be the effect of fluctuations in heat uptake by the [oceans](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/13/study-global-warming-directly-linked-to-ocean-surface-temperature-changes/) \(which represent 99+% of the thermal mass of the system\).
1.1.5.5.1.1. Con: CO₂ levels lag behind temperature, yet CO₂ is considered the driver. The two factors seems to correlate, but in the wrong direction to suggest causality.
1.1.5.5.1.1.1. Con: Changes in insolation due to Milankovitch cycles initiate warming, and the warming causes [outgassing of CO2 from soil and oceans, which in turn causes more warming.](https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm)
1.1.5.5.2. Con: The variations around the turn of the century and the mid/late 20th century are regular variations within the [1000 year climate development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#/media/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png). They are not 'chaotic' enough to explain the eventual outbreak to the top.
1.1.5.5.3. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.1.5.5.4. Pro: Drops in global temperature can be seen in the [Hadcrut data set](https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/monitoring/index.html).
1.1.5.5.5. Con: Predictions based on statistics are increasingly accurate with larger sample sizes. Just like the weather, it may be difficult to predict a single \(rainy\) day - but predicting longer trends \(like summer is warmer\) is very easy.
1.1.5.5.5.1. Con: This depends on the dynamics of the system, and not sample size. There are more observations of daily weather than there are of annual temperature, but the long run series is more predictable.
1.1.5.6. Pro: Projected warming from rising CO2 levels by various IPCC reports in the past just have not matched actual temperature increases - the rate of warming seems to be quite low and the IPCC's projected warming much higher than actual temperature changes.
1.1.5.6.1. Con: The "chaotic" nature of climate obtains in e.g. the prediction of the specific timing of ENSO events.  That doesn't mean that ENSO events have a random long-term effect.  The "chaos" in timing doesn't obscure our ability to determine that the atmosphere/ocean system is gaining energy, and that the cause is an increase in GHGs due to human combustion of fossil fuels.
1.1.5.6.1.1. Pro: Moreover, AGW is amplifying the effects of natural causes such as [El Nino](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/aug/29/global-warming-is-intensifying-el-nino-weather).
1.1.5.6.1.2. Con: The chaotic nature of climate means it is difficult to attribute how much warming or change in climate is due to CO2.
1.1.5.6.2. Con: Projected warming of the [combined atmosphere-ocean system](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053262) has been very accurate.
1.1.5.6.3. Pro: This can be seen in Hansen's 1988 prediction compared to actual temperature change [graph](http://www.realclimate.org/images/hansen88.png).
1.1.5.6.4. Con: There is a very [reasonable correlation](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png) between CO₂ and global temperatures, as shown in this graph from NOAA. The variations in the T trace are due to non-CO₂ factors; solar, ocean currents, volcanoes and aerosols.
1.1.5.6.5. Con: Predictions of climate models from the past were [accurate](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming).
1.1.5.6.5.1. Con: This is nearly impossible because we do not have accurate records of 'past' climate.
1.1.5.6.5.1.1. Con: Data for the past is available since the late [19th century](https://qz.com/1055629/why-does-all-our-climate-data-start-in-1880/).
1.1.5.6.5.1.1.1. Con: The data includes just some of the data and mainly on the surface.
1.1.5.6.5.1.2. Pro: No records exist for aerosols prior to the satellite era- an important component of determining historical atmospheric behaviour. Aerosols are a localised phenomonen.
1.1.5.6.5.1.2.1. Pro: No records exist about humidity, wind, or water vapor prior to the satellite era.
1.1.5.6.5.1.3. Pro: Records of ocean heat or temperatures are very scarce prior to the last 20 years - most were created from shipping routes, even these are dubious as the method for collecting temperature data was quite uncontrolled and [unscientific](http://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/amp) \(throwing a bucket into the water and checking temperature\). It's for this reason the ARGO buoy network was deployed to measure ocean temperatures to a depth of 700m.
1.1.5.6.5.1.3.1. Con: 93% of the produced heat due to gases e.g. Methane, Carbon dioxide, are stored in the ocean. [climatestate.com](http://climatestate.com/2013/09/02/world-ocean-heat-content-and-thermosteric-sea-level-change-0-2000-m-1955-2010/)
1.1.5.6.5.1.3.2. Pro: The ocean is [absorbing](https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/tag/greenhouse-effect/) about 30-40% of the GHG released by man, so 60-70% [remains in the air](http://ib.bioninja.com.au).
1.1.5.6.5.1.4. Pro: Deep ocean heat and temperature records are non-existent. Scientists do not know the energy flows and movement of an important heat sink in the Earth's energy system - the ocean below depths of 700m.
1.1.5.6.5.1.4.1. Con: We have had [bathythermograph technology](https://www.britannica.com/technology/bathythermograph), which could reach depths of 300 metres, since the 1960s. Since the early 2000s we have [3,600 Argo floats](https://books.google.ie/books?id=kZwvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA678&lpg=PA678&dq=3,600+Argo+floats&source=bl&ots=eDhwEKmgrQ&sig=ACfU3U0mtu9wsDjQ2UvI-UqnNnKSHMiQHA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGlKbI9d_iAhX0ThUIHdmeBgsQ6AEwDHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=3%2C600%20Argo%20floats&f=false) which measure temperature and salinity to a depth of 2000 metres.\(pp.679\) Altogether they produce about 100,000 measurements per year.
1.1.5.6.5.1.5. Con: We have multiple proxies that indicate past climate, including ice cores, coral growth, stalactites, pollen, tree rings and foraminifera.
1.1.5.6.5.1.6. Con: The above claim does not really relate to its parent. Models demonstrate their accuracy by performing well with relation to accurate observations of temperature from the modern era. [This is termed Hindcasting.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming)
1.1.5.6.5.2. Pro: One of the earliest models by Sawyer in 1973 estimates a warming of 0.6C until 2000 and an atmospheric CO2 concentration between 375-400ppm \([Sawyer, p. 24/26](https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf)\). The CO2 concentration in 2000 was ~[370ppm](ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt) and the 5-year average temperature rise was about [0.5C](http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png).
1.1.5.6.5.3. Pro: The IPCC's projections have been [quite accurate](https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/how-accurate-are-future-projections-of-climate-change-a-look-at-past-ipcc-reports-236), and in some cases too conservative.
1.1.5.6.5.4. Con: One of the three models proposed by [Hansen et al](https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf), estimated the [projected rate of warming to be 30% higher than what has been observed](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming) between the years 1970-2016.
1.1.5.7. Con: The weather is scientifically chaotic. The climate is [less so](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11641-climate-myths-chaotic-systems-are-not-predictable/) as the climate is an averaging of weather over long periods of time.
1.1.5.8. Pro: The [IPCC](https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm) states "The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system."
1.1.5.8.1. Con: The report continues to state that this means that "surprises" are not predictable; it is not questioning if climate change is predictable or takes place.
1.1.5.8.1.1. Con: The claims above do not question if climate change exists, but how accurately it can be measured or predicted.
1.1.5.8.1.2. Pro: It is better to work on assumptions of a current trajectory than to hope for surprises that humanity won't be affected by climate change.
1.1.5.9. Pro: Notes from a [climate science course](https://history.aip.org/climate/chaos.htm) indicate the climate exhibiting chaotic behaviour.
1.1.5.9.1. Pro: The main conclusion of the linked piece is this "consensus developed that the climate system was unlikely to jump into an altogether different state. The most likely future was one of gradual change, with low odds for an abrupt catastrophe"
1.1.5.9.1.1. Con: The linked piece says this: "Under some circumstances a fairly small change in conditions, even something that seemed so slight as an increase of greenhouse gases, could nudge climate into a seriously different state."
1.1.5.9.2. Con: The referenced notes conclude that for all the variability of the system, climate change is no longer in doubt. 

"What was no longer in doubt was the most important insight produced by the half-century of computer experiments......The climate looked less like a simple predictable system than like a confused beast, which a dozen different forces were prodding in different directions. It responded sluggishly, but once it began to move it would be hard to stop."
1.1.5.10. Con: The fact that the climate system exhibits chaotic behavior makes it more important, not less, to avoid changing input conditions such as atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.
1.1.5.10.1. Con: This is a non sequitur. The argument presented by the parent is about disputing the relationship between climate change and CO2.
1.1.5.11. Con: Regardless of whether climate changes are due to chaotic behaviour or predictable causes, we are still advised to take measures to reduce adverse outcomes.
1.1.5.11.1. Con: That would be mitigation actions - a completely separate argument to this thesis - which is to act to fight climate change.
1.1.5.11.2. Pro: In cases where a potential existential risk is perceived, the degree of certainty required about the veracity of the threat should necessarily be far less than absolute. This means that risk mitigation should be attempted earlier.
1.1.6. Con: This is an [appeal to nature logical fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). It is not an actual reason to consider not acting on climate change.
1.1.6.1. Pro: That something is natural doesn't mean we shouldn't fight, help, or push it further.
1.1.7. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.
1.1.8. Con: [97%](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm) of climate scientists agree on the anthropogenic origin \(greenhouse gases\) of the climate change we are talking about.
1.1.8.1. Con: Social pressure and research funding incentives have made it difficult for climate scientists to speak out against human-caused climate change claims.
1.1.8.1.1. Con: A scientist must report his results accurately if he wants to keep his job, no matter what the social pressure is.
1.1.8.1.1.1. Con: Overwhelmingly, a scientist is assumed to have accurately reported their results without any checks being performed. As such, a scientist isn't necessarily going to get fired if they don't accurately report their results.
1.1.8.1.1.1.1. Con: [Peer review of data](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/11/what-constitutes-peer-review-research-data/) is increasingly becoming the norm. [Peer review](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16) takes place after data is gathered. There is no process by which every result is reproduced by some other scientist to ensure that the first scientist didn't make up their data.
1.1.8.1.2. Con: Scientists have been warning society about climate change since over 25 years while facing strong anti-climate change pressure.
1.1.8.1.3. Pro: Scientific practice in an academic environment creates political influence and incentives.
1.1.8.1.3.1. Pro: Communications among scientists are often directed to and evaluated by relatively homogeneous in-groups
1.1.8.1.3.2. Pro: Participants in science are often rewarded for not compromising or even synthesizing
1.1.8.1.3.3. Con: Social scientists often actively police themselves to project a neutral stance to human participants. They do this for the comfort of their participants, but also to create a context where participants will feel free to honestly share their own perspectives.
1.1.8.1.3.3.1. Con: It may not be possible to project a completely neutral stance. It may not even be clear what that would be.
1.1.8.1.3.3.2. Pro: The blind peer-review process makes sure that the focus of evaluation rests on the content rather than the author.
1.1.8.1.3.4. Pro: Many areas of science depend on financial or other resources to make progress, and these resources are often controlled by political processes.
1.1.8.1.3.5. Pro: Dissemination in science \(e.g., peer-review publication\) is a socially mediated process that is influenced by the current political climate.
1.1.8.1.3.5.1. Con: Scientists however make their names from paradigm-disrupting results. To the extent a political, or any other bias, shapes research towards preconceived results there is any equally powerful incentive to prove those results incorrect.
1.1.8.1.3.5.1.1. Con: Not all scientific research is groundbreaking, in fact 99% of it is just furthering existing knowledge - and such is the case with the climate science community.
1.1.8.1.4. Pro: [Judith Curry](http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/judith-curry-resigns-battle-of-scientific-integrity-versus-career-suicide/), a widely acclaimed climate scientist has been vilified and threatened personally simply because of her skeptical views. As a result she decided to end her career in climate science.
1.1.8.1.4.1. Con: Judith Curry was arguing that climate scientist should be more open to skeptical view. She wasn't skeptical herself other than she claimed the prediction on climate was more uncertain that the IPCC would let know. There is no evidence of her being vilified and threatened.
1.1.8.1.5. Pro: Scientists are vulnerable to groupthink and dissenting scientists have been sidelined.
1.1.8.1.5.1. Pro: [Ignaz Semmelweis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis) was trying to introduce the obligation to sterilise hands for doctors but, even though his findings proved him correct, the scientific community rejected him and his findings.
1.1.8.1.5.1.1. Con: The medical community that Semmelweis was opposing was not scientific in any modern sense.
1.1.8.1.5.2. Con: [It is a myth](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full) that dissenting scientists have been vilified, or even that that are dissenting opinions. In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic.
1.1.8.1.5.2.1. Con: The fact that there were no peer reviewed papers that rejected the consensus opinion plays into the notion that scientists are vulnerable to groupthink.
1.1.8.1.5.3. Pro: There is much evidence suggesting group think, poor scientific practice and unsubstantiated scientific conclusions about the Earth's future climate regime and its impacts. If someone questions Climate Science these days they are subjected to all sorts of negativity or name calling.
1.1.8.1.5.3.1. Con: The scientific consensus on future climate includes ranges of estimates that account for uncertainties in theory and data. Alternative hypotheses that don't fit the facts don't deserve equal standing. It's irresponsible to blame this on "group think" or lack of integrity in the scientific community.
1.1.8.1.5.3.1.1. Con: Scientific consensus[once agreed](https://www.insidescience.org/news/scientific-consensus-almost-never-wrong-%E2%80%94-almost) in the [steady state theory](https://www.britannica.com/science/steady-state-theory) that plates of the earth didn't move and that there is an invisible substance that filled space so that light could travel. All now proven false.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2. Pro: Rajendra Pachauri, the former IPCC Chairman, has repeatedly made false claims about climate change. These false claims have never truly been reversed or corrected.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.1. Con: The IPCC has [3 working groups](http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%202%20-%20Evaluation%20of%20IPCC%E2%80%99s%20Assessment%20Processes.pdf). Each have different standards for peer reviewed source material. Working group 1, the scientific basis, requires most source material to be peer reviewed. Working group 2, where the Himalayan claim was made, does have a policy that allows some non-peer reviewed source material. It is unclear how Rajendra Pachauri lied about this as it's a widely known policy.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.2. Con: The error was highlighted by [Graham Cogley](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm) who is a contributor to the IPCC report.  We can be confident in the conclusions of the report because of the self-correcting nature of science.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.3. Pro: [Rajendra](http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/book-excerpt-conspiracy-of-silence) falsely claims IPCC lead authors and all the contributors are 'top of the field' yet the IPCC is known to hire graduate students.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.4. Pro: Rajendra Pachari has pushed climate alarmist notions such as [Himalayan glaciers melting](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc) by 2035.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.4.1. Con: The IPCC revised its prediction of the melting of the [Himalayan glaciers](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html) after criticism.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.4.1.1. Con: Irrefutable evidence will be accommodated by the IPCC. All new evidence will therefore be absorbed but the organisation cannot challenge the theory of AGW as its remit is to explain it, not refute it.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.4.1.1.1. Pro: Scientific disciplines will form a '[protective belt](http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/Lakatos.html)' by incorporating unfitting knwoledge without altering the core assumptions.
1.1.8.1.5.3.2.4.2. Con: The Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 is believed to be [a typo](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm), not a fundamental flaw in the science.
1.1.8.1.5.3.3. Con: One or two examples do not discredit the whole scientific community.
1.1.8.1.5.3.3.1. Con: The climate science community does not create the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports are created by a handful of 'lead authors' who take contributions and decide the narrative and make a call on what should be in the report and what should not.
1.1.8.1.5.4. Pro: The history of science is full of ideas that were [once ridiculed](http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html) and are now commonly accepted. Modern science further [encourages conformity](https://aeon.co/essays/does-science-need-mavericks-or-are-they-part-of-the-problem)
1.1.8.1.5.5. Con: Scientists are [unlikely to be affected by groupthink](https://phys.org/news/2019-09-groupthink-valid-argument-climate-science.html), as they have high incentives to report accurate results.
1.1.8.1.5.5.1. Pro: Scientific breakthroughs that [challenge the status quo](https://phys.org/news/2019-09-groupthink-valid-argument-climate-science.html) are highly rewarded within the scientific community.
1.1.8.1.6. Con: The vocal scientists that lean one way or another are a minority of scientists. Generally scientists do not "speak out" about much. they just gather data, do their research, and submit papers.
1.1.8.1.7. Con: The market capitalization of the fossil fuel industry is around [$5 trillion](https://about.bnef.com/blog/fossil-fuel-divestment-5-trillion-challenge/) , and climate change puts this value at risk; there should be plenty of funding for scientists who can disprove climate change and preserve this value.
1.1.8.1.8. Con: With the current state of journalism, if a scientist were to find concrete evidence against climate change, the media would quickly publicize it for the sheer spectacle.
1.1.9. Con: The [IPCC](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf)(Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. \(Section 1.2\)) considers that "anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions" are "extremely likely" \(95-100% probability\) to be "the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."
1.1.9.1. Pro: Scientific claims are based on evidence and meticulous study. [The intergovernmental report on climate change](https://www.ipcc.ch/) should be considered true until you can disprove it with serious scientific evidence.
1.1.9.1.1. Con: The IPCC reports actually explicitly state that both projecting future climate scenarios, and modelling the atmosphere / complex climate processes is almost impossible.  "The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic" [IPCC - chaotic behaviour](https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm)
1.1.9.1.1.1. Con: "Challenging" does not means "Impossible"
1.1.9.1.2. Con: There are numerous peer reviewed studies that disagree with the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity used by the IPCC. Eg Otto 2012, [Lewis & Curry 2014](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y).
1.1.9.1.2.1. Con: Those papers rely on the range of uncertainty in the cooling effect of aerosols \(clouds\).  Lewis and Curry say ["Uncertainty in aerosol forcing is the dominant contribution to the ECS and TCR uncertainty ranges."](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y)  They clung to the extreme low-end of the range.  More recent work, matching climate models with observation \([Brown and Caldera 2017](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672)\), indicates that the low-end of the range must be revised upward by ~0.5C.
1.1.9.1.2.2. Con: The evidence indicates that the low-end of the ECS needs to be revised upward:  "A value below 2°C for the lower end of the likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity now seems less plausible"  \([royalsociety.org](https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2017/27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf)\)
1.2. Con: Human resources and efforts are best used adapting to the effects of climate change, rather than attempting to mitigate climate change itself.
1.2.1. Con: Adaptation and fighting climate change often go hand in hand.
1.2.1.1. Pro: More soil \(organic matter\) [stores more carbon](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/21/can-soil-help-combat-climate-change/) and also [increases water-holding capacity](https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-bryant/organic-matter-can-improve-your-soils-water-holding-capacity), thereby reducing the damage of and vulnerability to forest fires.
1.2.1.2. Pro: Restoring wetlands and floodplains [increases](https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/basic-information-about-wetland-restoration-and-protection) water storage capacities while simultaneously providing a refuge for species.
1.2.2. Pro: Given that humans are unable to stop climate change, the resources would be best used to find alternative habitable locations.
1.2.2.1. Con: Human exploration [risks contaminating](https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/aug/28/the-case-against-mars-colonisation) Mars.
1.2.2.2. Pro: Stephen Hawking [claimed](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/stephen-hawking-100-years-on-earth-prediction-starmus-festival) that humans must find other inhabitable planets in 100 years, if they are to survive.
1.2.2.3. Pro: -> See discussion #2495: Humanity [should](https://qz.com/1105031/should-humans-colonize-mars-or-the-moon-a-scientific-investigation/) colonize Mars.
1.2.3. Pro: It is now too late for humanity to avert the most disastrous effects of climate change.
1.2.3.1. Pro: The Earth is being damaged at a rate [faster than we](https://news.vice.com/article/humans-are-destroying-the-environment-at-a-rate-unprecedented-in-over-10000-years) can attempt to rectify it.
1.2.3.2. Pro: Some social scientists [predict](https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-academic-its-too-late-to-stop-climate-change-were-doomed/) that it is too late to stop climate change - only an immediate, total cut in global carbon emissions will work, which is not going to happen.
1.2.3.3. Pro: Scholars like Jem Bendell argue that it is too late to act, that the time to mitigate is over and that we should instead start [“Deep Adaptation”](https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf).
1.2.3.4. Con: Michael Mann uses the term "[climate inactivism](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/)" to describe the argument that the challenge is too difficult or hopeless to be worth engaging. Whether intentional or not, it tends to stifle the impulse to make incremental improvement.
1.2.3.5. Con: -> See discussion #8337: Man-made climate change can be reversed.
1.3. Pro: Climate change has a profound and negative impact on nature.
1.3.1. Pro: Even a small rise in mean global temperature has [been](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35566151) [predicted](http://www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/climate_change.htm) to threaten farming and fishing.
1.3.1.1. Pro: "Even slight increase of CO2, will produce rising levels of atmospheric water vapour that is the largest natural greenhouse gas, making global warming even worse for most life in earth that depends on homeostasis --- that is, requirement for a stable environment in order to live, and that was the case for the past 11.000 years": [ib.bioninja.com.au](http://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-4-ecology/44-climate-change/greenhouse-debate.html)
1.3.2. Con: The Earth's climate is well within the bounds of the current [Holocene](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198), which is a time of Earth's history that humans have thrived in, suggesting that although the climate may be changing or has changed, it isn't necessarily bad.
1.3.2.1. Con: Even if the Earth is in the Holocene, the changes are [still detrimental](https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2010/11/20101115135254194232.html) to current nature.
1.3.2.2. Con: Per that same link, "Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
1.3.3. Con: A greater concentration of CO₂ would be preferable for some life on Earth, such as plants. More plant life would be beneficial to humanity.
1.3.3.1. Con: There is little doubt that a warming climate will be generally harmful to humanity. [Scientific projections based on observation](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6386/263) anticipate degraded agricultural output, [among other serious problems](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28723). Heat and disrupted precipitation do not "bring life".
1.3.3.2. Pro: CO₂ levels in the atmosphere are currently sub optimal for [plant growth](https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide).
1.3.3.2.1. Con: 1500 ppm in the atmosphere implies significant changes in [temperature](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf) \(see fig SPM.5\(b\)\) and [water-availability](https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/files/user_files/pcm/milly_et_al_2005.pdf), affecting plant-growth \(as supported in [another claim](https://www.kialo.com/humans-should-act-to-fight-climate-change-4540/4540.0=4540.1-4540.1025+4540.354+4540.772-4540.897/-4540.897)\).
1.3.3.2.1.1. Pro: Assuming an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of 2, \(which is very conservative, since the more broadly agreed figure is 3\) 1500 ppm of CO2 implies a T of 6C above pre-industrial levels, a condition that would be [extremely disruptive to the planetary ecosystem.](https://climatenewsnetwork.net/mass-extinction-forecast-with-6c-temperature-rise/)
1.3.3.2.2. Con: Increasing CO2 has adverse effects on ocean acidity and climate. Therefore the phrase "good thing" is inappropriate.
1.3.3.2.2.1. Pro: There is ongoing acidification of the world's oceans, with the average ocean pH predicted to reach [7.8](http://www.epoca-project.eu/index.php/what-is-ocean-acidification.html) by the end of the 21st century.
1.3.3.2.2.1.1. Con: Daily/monthly and short term local fluctuations of [pH levels](http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Honisch_et_al_2012_Science_ocean_acidification.pdf) far, far outweigh the impact of additional anthropogenic CO₂.
1.3.3.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: Ecosystems have adapted to [much greater](https://biopixel.tv/reef-fish-co2/) pH changes
1.3.3.2.2.1.2. Pro: Acidification threatens marine ecosystems.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.1. Con: A recent peer reviewed survey of Acidification experts & their opinion reveals mixed results; Only 4 of 23 experts with knowledge in the issue area agree to \>0.98 that acidification will result in a loss of biodiviersity. - the study also reveals the disparity in opinion among the 'experts' at present - indicating the science is far from having reached consensus[Gattuso, J.-P., Mach, K. & Morgan, J., 2013. Ocean acidification and its impacts: an expert survey. Climatic Change, 117\(4\), pp.725–738](https://cedmcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ocean-acidification-and-its-impacts-an-expert-survey.pdf).
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.1.1. Con: The authors " find a relatively strong consensus on most issues related to past, present and future chemical aspects of ocean acidification: non-anthropogenic ocean acidification events have occurred in the geological past, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the main \(but not the only\) mechanism generating the current ocean acidification event, and anthropogenic ocean acidification that has occurred due to historical fossil fuel emissions will be felt for centuries".
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.2. Pro: The acidification can be [catastrophic for calcifying organisms](https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification), which play a vital role in the maintenance of biodiversity.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.2.1. Con: Studies show that [corals](https://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13219) are unaffected by pH variations.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.2.1.1. Con: The referenced study only shows that corals can regulate internal pH, to some degree. This doesn't mean they are unaffected. [With decreasing pH \(i.e. acidification\), corals suffer decreasing skeletal density](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/8/1754).
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.2.2. Pro: The structure of coral reefs [cannot grow as quickly](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43391388) when the ocean is acidifying, because the acidity of the water prevents a buildup of calcium carbonate \(which corals draw from the water to build their skeletons\).
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3. Con: The evidence indicating harm to ecosystems due to a shift in pH is poorly understood.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.1. Con: The core science is well understood. Observed rises in atmospheric CO2 will certainly diffuse into the oceans, where they must reduce the alkalinity of the ocean. Already a [0.1 decrease](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/) in pH has been observed.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.2. Con: The [Precautionary Principle](http://Precautionary Principle) demands that the onus of proof should shift onto polluters to show that they are not doing harm.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.3. Pro: Research on the decrease in calcification rates at the [Great Barrier Reef](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/116) failed to determine the exact role of ocean acidification and rise in temperature.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.3.1. Con: Since CO2 increases cause both acidification and temperature rises, the exact contribution from each factor is of academic importance, but should not hold us back from addressing the cause.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.4. Pro: Different species studied can react differently. This makes it difficult to determine the exact impact.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.5. Pro: Calcification rates are affected by other factors, such as carbonate chemistry or [pollution](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2017.2718).
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.5.1. Con: Calcification rates *are* carbonate chemistry.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.6. Con: Here's some [empirical evidence](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1122). Ocean vents bubble CO2 through a marine ecosystem, allowing comparison with nearby systems not affected in the same way, and controlling for temperature. \(Note, however, that the actual anticipated scenario is decreased pH plus increased temperature.\)
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.7. Con: Researchers from the University of Sydney discovered a [direct correlation](https://theconversation.com/ocean-acidification-is-already-harming-the-great-barrier-reefs-growth-55226) between changes in ocean pH and coral growth
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.3.8. Con: Any human being that has operated a home aquarium of any size successfully has learned the effect of carbon dioxide \(carbonic acid\) levels on marine life. There are many scientific papers examining the effects of [pH](https://sciencing.com/effect-ph-living-organisms-6723807.html) on species and [ecosystems](https://www.epa.gov/ocean-acidification/effects-ocean-and-coastal-acidification-ecosystems).
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.4. Con: Stone corals have a calcification rate that [peaks](https://www.nap.edu/read/12904/chapter/6#62) at a higher sea level temperature. An increase in global temperature could thus be offset by the initial increase in growth.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.4.1. Con: [Coral growth rates have plummeted 40 percent since the mid-1970s.](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917121225.htm) The scientists suggest that ocean acidification may be playing an important role in this perilous slowdown.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.4.2. Con: [An experiment in alkalinisation of living coral](https://thinkprogress.org/ocean-acidification-is-slowing-coral-reef-growth-7867fbb15176/) found that growth rates decreased in more acidic conditions.
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.4.3. Con: [Coral calcification rates decrease significantly along a natural gradient in seawater pH](https://news.ucsc.edu/2013/06/calcifying-corals.html)
1.3.3.2.2.1.2.5. Pro: Climate change [severely impacts](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html) coral reef ecosystems.
1.3.3.2.3. Con: The link claims a 30% increase in plant growth at 1500ppm CO₂. However, humans begin to suffer symptoms of impaired higher cognition at those levels. Therefore, quite apart from climate change, CO₂ levels must be capped for reasons of human health.
1.3.3.2.3.1. Pro: A small study of levels of CO2 in an office environment showed a [reduction of strategic thinking at 1000 ppm](https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-dioxide-impairs-decision-making-performance/).
1.3.3.2.3.1.1. Con: While promising and clear in the results, the number of 24 participants makes this study inconclusive until it is reproduced with larger numbers of participants.
1.3.3.2.3.2. Pro: Simulator tests on 30 airline pilots show performance is significantly worse at 1500 ppm of CO2. Cabin levels are routinely 1000 ppm, occasionally \(5% of the time\) 1500. [www.nature.com](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0055-8#Bib1)
1.3.3.2.3.3. Con: ISS Space Station safe levels of CO2 are well above 1500ppm. 5000ppm average in a day is common.
1.3.3.2.3.3.1. Con: [Headaches are common in astronauts in the ISS,](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140501100922.htm) especially when CO2 levels are high. For every [mm Hg Pressure increase the incidence of headaches doubles.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/08/28/why-seventy-percent-of-astronauts-get-headaches-in-space/#e17bddd40519)
1.3.3.2.4. Con: Important crops that sustain human civilization benefit from increasing CO₂, but they [are harmed](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6150195_Predicting_the_impact_of_changing_CO2_on_crop_yields) by increasing heat \(not to mention drought or floods\).
1.3.3.2.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.2.1.
1.3.3.2.4.2. Con: There is evidence of plant life during warmer times on the Planet such as the [Holocene Optimum](http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html).
1.3.3.2.4.3. Con: Living plant species have adapted to a much warmer climate in the past; they've all successfully lived through the last 100,000 years.
1.3.3.2.4.3.1. Pro: Some species of animals and plants are already showing [signs](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2622454/Nature-CAN-cope-climate-change-Unusual-behaviour-plants-animals-suggests-weve-underestimated-ability-adapt-claim-studies.html) of adaption to climate change.
1.3.3.2.4.3.2. Con: The article shows empirically that Oryza sativa \(rice\), benefits somewhat from gains in CO2, but that these gains are more-than-counteracted by losses due to simultaneous increases in heat.  This plant was domesticated ~10k years ago and currently feeds ~4 billion people.   [www.researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/6150195_Relationship-between-percentage-of-filled-spikelets-with-10-or-more-germinated-pollen)
1.3.3.2.4.3.3. Con: There is evidence to suggest that increased carbon dioxide levels will cause crops to become less nutrient dense, leading to [nutrient deficiencies](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-global-warming-make-food-less-nutritious/) in humans.
1.3.3.2.4.3.4. Con: Future harvests of wheat, soybeans and corn could drop by 22 to 49 percent, mostly due to [water stress](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-crop-harvests-could-suffer-with-climate-change/).
1.3.3.2.4.4. Con: Tropical rainforests - located in the hottest areas of Earth - contain the most complex and diverse ecosystems on the planet. Global warming extends the tropics.
1.3.3.2.4.4.1. Con: Already existing tropics could become too hot. Biodiversity will be reduced. Expending tropics is [not](https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-tropical-zone-is-expanding-and-australia-should-be-worried-77701) a good thing.
1.3.3.2.4.4.2. Con: Climate change may [not extend](http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/climate_change_amazon/) the tropics but instead turn the existing rainforests into dry savanna. "With modelling studies projecting a warmer and drier environment for the Amazon, climate change paints a bleak future for the region – a future where both people and biodiversity stand to lose."
1.3.3.2.4.4.3. Con: Deserts - located in the hottest areas of Earth, contain very little species diversity. Climate change threatens to extend deserts through a process called [desertification](http://climatica.org.uk/desertification-land-degradation-changing-climate).
1.3.3.2.4.5. Pro: One reason plants don't like heat or drought, \(assuming that they are not adapted to it\), is that those climatic changes can [affect the life cycles](https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/timing-pollinators-and-the-impact-of-climate-change) of animals the plants depend on for pollination or seed dispersal.
1.3.3.2.4.6. Pro: Several important food crops \(like rice and soybeans\) use the [C3 metabolic pathway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation), which [breaks down at higher temperatures](https://ripe.illinois.edu/blog/difference-between-c3-and-c4-plants).
1.3.3.2.5. Con: CO2 is only one of the many factors that can limit plant growth. While some areas of the globe could benefit from increased leaf cover due to increased CO2 fertilisation, this would probably be [cancelled out](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/) by [desertification](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm) in other areas due to increased heat and water stress.
1.3.3.2.6. Con: Humans aren't concerned about climate change because we feel plants need more help - humans are concerned about our ability to live and maintain our civilization.
1.3.3.3. Con: It is the [rate of change](https://www.kialo.com/argument/4540.462) that is the problem. It is too fast to allow species to adapt.
1.3.3.3.1. Pro: The evolution and [expansion of grasslands](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207023445#!) after the Oligocene climate change event reduced the viable living space for non-grassland species.
1.3.3.4. Pro: The Carboniferous period had CO₂ levels over [1500ppm](https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide) - a time when the Earth was covered in plants/trees.
1.3.3.4.1. Con: Levels of CO2 in the Carboniferous were about 1500ppm, and they fell to 350ppm in the late period, [giving a mean level of about 800ppm](https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html). Early Carboniferous temperatures were around 22C, and they fell to about 12C in the late Carboniferous. [CO2 levels](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png). [Temperatures](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png)
1.3.3.4.2. Con: Sea levels at the beginning of the Carboniferous were 120m higher than present, falling to today's levels, then rising to 80m higher [than today](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18832639).
1.3.3.4.3. Con: -> See 1.3.3.2.3.1.
1.3.3.4.4. Con: Paleontology is of great academic interest, but has little or no bearing on whether or not we should act to fight climate change
1.3.3.4.5. Con: Such environments were not conducive to human life.
1.3.3.4.5.1. Pro: The fauna of the Carboniferous was mainly invertebrate, with giant insects, some fish, amphibians, and reptiles. No mammals. No humans.
1.3.3.4.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.2.3.2.
1.3.3.4.6. Con: There was no wheat, rice, maize, sorghum, barley, millet, or yams, in the Carboniferous Era, and many staple crops that exist now would not prosper in a return to those conditions \(see [Bunce](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283812688_The_Impact_of_Enhanced_Atmospheric_CO2_Concentrations_on_the_Responses_of_Maize_and_Soybean_to_Elevated_Growth_Temperatures), or [Schlenker](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594), or [Burke](https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/historical.php)\). The plants of that era took millions of years to evolve. The path toward a return to similar conditions puts [huge numbers of humans at risk](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/28723/9781464811555.pdf).
1.3.3.5. Pro: The globe has greened due to [CO2 fertilisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect); this can be seen from satellite evidence. This is happening while extra 'heat' is being added.
1.3.3.5.1. Pro: Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models of three long-term satellite leaf area index show that [70%](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004) of the greening effect are attributable to CO2 fertilization.
1.3.3.6. Con: Climate change’s [negative effects](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/#googDisableSync) on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
1.3.3.6.1. Pro: There is research to suggest that elevated CO₂ levels reduce the nutrient content of crops: [Increasing CO₂ threatens human nutrition](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13179)
1.3.3.7. Pro: Expansion of crop production into areas not previously suitable. As previously cold areas warm, they become [suitable for a new range of crop](http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/agriculture-and-climate/future-outlook/impact-of-climate-change-on-canadian-agriculture/?id=1329321987305).
1.3.3.7.1. Con: The expectation is that changing climate, even accounting for the ["fertilizing" effect](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/) of rising CO₂, will result in a [net loss](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6386/263)(\[...\] although this expectation is met in the first few years of a long-term experiment, the situation reverses after 15 to 20 years, with important implications for future crop production and ecosystems.) of agricultural production.
1.3.3.7.2. Con: The link given above also mentions that droughts, storms, pests and weeds would act against the expansion in arable areas
1.3.3.7.3. Con: Existing crop areas are likely to become unsuitable, requiring large scale planning changes and major economic and food disruptions.
1.3.3.7.3.1. Pro: The rising temperature will cause parts of currently habitable land to become [uninhabitable](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/21/florida-climate-crisis-sea-level-habitat-loss)(Few places on the planet are more at risk from the climate crisis than south Florida, where more than 8 million residents are affected by the convergence of almost every modern environmental challenge – from rising seas to contaminated drinking water, more frequent and powerful hurricanes, coastal erosion, flooding and vanishing wildlife and habitat.\n\nIf scientists are right, the lower third of the state will be underwater by the end of the century. Yet despite this grim outlook, scientists, politicians, environment groups and others are tackling the challenges head on.) due to rising ocean levels and desertification.
1.3.3.7.3.1.1. Pro: A more-recent study estimates sea-level rise of [more than 2 meters](https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/05/14/1817205116) by 2100.
1.3.3.7.4. Con: There is [strong](https://www.nature.com/news/crop-pests-advancing-with-global-warming-1.13644) [evidence](http://science.time.com/2013/09/02/a-warmer-world-will-mean-more-pests-and-pathogens-for-crops/) to suggest that such greening will cause the expansion of pests into new areas, causing major damage to both crops and wildlife.
1.3.3.8. Con: The generally agreed upon climate is the pre-anthropocene climate because it is best for humans.
1.3.3.8.1. Con: Pre-anthropocene would imply climate before human intervention in climate - this is the climate encompassing the whole Holocene - and temperature variations within the Holocene are substantially larger than the perceived changes in temperature due to man-made CO2 increases.
1.3.3.8.2. Con: Pre-anthropocene is a buzzword that implies pre-man, not pre-industrial. It has no measurable significance from a geological or measurement of climate shifts.
1.3.3.8.3. Pro: Human biology, culture, agriculture, and technology have evolved within the constraints of the pre-industrial atmospheric composition.
1.3.3.8.4. Pro: Unless we intervene, the [projected temperature anomaly](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4) is a departure from anything seen in a hundreds of millions of [years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg).
1.3.3.8.4.1. Pro: [This article](https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years/) includes covers times when rapid global warming has occurred in the past. They have never been as rapid as present warming, and even so, they have often been accompanied by mass extinctions.
1.3.3.8.4.2. Pro: There have only been very [small-scale](https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/holocene.php) climate shifts in the Holocene period, the last 11,700 years of the Earth's history.
1.3.3.9. Con: Modern plants have symbiotic relationships with animals. Animals need to breath oxygen and are adapted to breathing oxygen at current levels.
1.3.4. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.2.2.1.
1.3.5. Con: Nature is neutral. It does not prefer one life over the other. Nature will remain, whatever forms survive.
1.3.5.1. Pro: Humankind showed its resilience and will most likely survive.
1.3.5.2. Con: Nature is not neutral. Humans and the animal kingdom are of a special quality to nature. Therefore intelligent species should strive to preserve a nature where these species thrive.
1.3.5.3. Con: Regardless of whether nature is neutral, we are not. A planet consisting only of cockroaches and one human is not an acceptable scenario.
1.3.5.4. Pro: The Earth, which is so much bigger and older than the human species, will still survive.
1.3.5.4.1. Pro: If the purpose of fighting climate change is to preserve the earth then humans do not need to fight climate change.
1.3.5.4.2. Con: Just because the earth will be fine in the long run does not mean it will be conductive to life. So, in order to preserve and cultivate earth's life-giving properties, humans should fight climate change.
1.3.5.4.2.1. Con: An increase in CO₂ means a warmer climate, which would benefit at least some life on Earth.
1.3.5.4.2.2. Pro: The fact that the planet earth will still exist regardless if humans worsen the climate and perish, is not an argument to stop humans from fighting for their survival
1.3.5.4.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.5.3.
1.3.6. Pro: Sea levels are [projected to rise](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/runaway-climate-change-2030-report_n_5b8ecba3e4b0162f4727a09f?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9jb25zZW50LnlhaG9vLmNvbS9jb2xsZWN0Q29uc2VudD9zZXNzaW9uSWQ9M19jYy1zZXNzaW9uX2FhZWJmODE2LTk0NTctNDg0OC1iN2JjLWVhNWQ3MWJmZWQxNyZsYW5nPWVuLXVzJmlubGluZT1mYWxzZQ&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALKZBjv6YFlhKgd0-0EKdQH8KzCHR0EYKwmYixBBq0l2qX55mDqfkNG1zjrSOUEKzcoufjvbYzAxCvS20RPH3sSRaj1fP2ch7Nw_GFq8H5upqModE9Y68sERd1GokylvGkZyfmqjKJ8eU1IuQoe1xf1HLjhROXuMGEl9ApMl3cah) as a result of climate change.
1.3.6.1. Con: Sea level changes have only been approximately 1.5mm per year, culminating in only [20cm](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1) sea level rise since 1880.
1.3.6.1.1. Con: -> See 1.3.3.7.3.1.
1.3.6.2. Pro: An increase in water temperature causes expansion as it does in all liquids. The oceans are large. So is the amount of expansion.
1.3.6.3. Pro: Climate change has been leading to the [melting of glaciers](https://psmag.com/environment/how-climate-change-is-affecting-glaciers-around-the-world).
1.3.6.3.1. Con: Melted glaciers can be highly beneficial - more land to grow crops, to live on, to hunt on and for animals/plants to live on.
1.3.6.3.1.1. Pro: On the whole, glaciers reduce biodiversity because most organisms require temperatures where water is liquid, to survive.
1.3.6.3.1.2. Con: The melting of glaciers can [damage the current local ecosystems](https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2010/11/20101115135254194232.html), can affect flora and fauna posing threats to existing biodiversity, and more, can lead to huge and possibly destructive floods.
1.3.6.3.1.2.1. Con: Many glaciers have melted in the [past](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/01/18/antarctica-melted-joides/#.XPFhhh4o-dM) and Earth's habitat has adapted.
1.3.6.3.1.2.1.1. Pro: The extent of glacier coverage was much higher before the Holocene Climate Optimum.
1.3.6.3.1.2.2. Pro: Glaciers act as water stores, ensuring a relatively constant flow in glacier derived rivers
1.3.6.3.2. Con: In the short and medium term, melted glaciers increase water supplies in the areas they are located in.
1.3.6.3.2.1. Con: -> See 1.3.6.3.1.2.
1.3.6.3.2.2. Con: According to National Snow & Ice Data Center \(NSIDC\), "most of the world's [glacial ice is found in Antarctica and Greenland](https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/located.html)". These areas are inaccessible for freshwater harvest and the fresh water from these glaciers will simply go into the ocean.
1.3.6.3.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.3.1.2.
1.3.6.4. Pro: The poles melting will free a lot of water.
1.3.6.4.1. Pro: The melting of the polar ice caps due to increased temperatures are interfering with natural habitats.
1.3.6.4.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.3.1.
1.3.6.4.1.2. Con: Many unnatural things can have benefits for the Earth and society.
1.3.6.4.1.3. Pro: NASA [reports](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles) that globally in 2017 there was less sea ice than any time since satellites began continuously tracking in 1979.
1.3.6.4.1.4. Pro: NASA [reports](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles) that the Arctic’s sea ice maximum extent has dropped by an average of 2.8 percent per decade since 1979.
1.3.6.4.1.5. Pro: A [domino effect](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142317.htm) of sea-ice melting on terrestrial animals could happen through a disruption in the food chain. From sea-ice algae and sub-ice plankton, to wolves and arctic foxes.
1.3.6.4.1.6. Pro: For some species, ice loss will likely [increase population mixing](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142317.htm), reducing genetic differentiation, and could promote mixing of pathogen communities that previously were isolated.
1.3.6.4.2. Con: Antarctica is actually [gaining ice](https://dailycaller.com/2015/11/02/nasa-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-growing-not-shrinking/).
1.3.6.4.2.1. Con: One ice sheet in Antarctica is growing. However, this [ignores other ice sheets](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-believe-in-antarctica-rsquo-s-great-ice-debate/) in Antarctica that are melting, as well as the North Pole \(which is losing several times more ice than one sheet might be gaining\).
1.3.6.4.3. Pro: Warming occurs [faster](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf) in the Arctic than in the Tropics.
1.3.6.4.3.1. Con: Even if the actual increase in temperature will be higher near the poles, people living in areas near the equator will still suffer more from the increase since the starting temperatures in these areas are higher.
1.3.6.4.4. Con: Fewer ice caps could be beneficial.
1.3.6.4.4.1. Pro: Melting polar ice will create [new trade routes](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/28/melting-arctic-ice-opens-new-route-from-europe-to-east-asia) and provide humanity access to natural resources in the area.
1.3.6.4.4.1.1. Pro: The journey time from Europe to Asia will be [reduced by two weeks](https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/23/climate-change-means-an-arctic-shipping-route-has-opened-up-for-the-first-time-7874683/) once the Arctic shipping route is navigatable for large vessels.
1.3.6.4.4.2. Pro: Melted ice caps are contributing to increased tourism. Already, the volume of tourist trips throughout Greenland, Norway, Alaska and Canada have[increased rapidly.](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092?guccounter=1)
1.3.6.4.4.2.1. Pro: Trips to watch Killer whales and grey whales are expected to benefit from melting ice, with more more time [available](https://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-sea-ice-melt-a-story-of-winners-and-losers-ipcc-scientist-says) for trips due to melting ice caps.
1.3.6.4.4.2.1.1. Con: Even as some whales benefit from greater access to the seas, they, along with other marine mammals could find their [breeding season disrupted](https://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-sea-ice-melt-a-story-of-winners-and-losers-ipcc-scientist-says) as it coincides with the times when access to the Northwest Passage for shipping will be greatest.
1.3.6.4.4.3. Pro: A [new study](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4375288/The-surprising-benefit-melting-ice-Arctic.html) has shown that melting ice in the Arctic may lead to more ponds that can host marine life.
1.3.6.5. Pro: Rising sea levels threaten hundreds of [endangered species](https://www.ecowatch.com/rising-sea-levels-threaten-233-endangered-species-1881837633.html) in the US, including certain types of seals, turtles, and deer.
1.3.6.6. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.7.3.1.
1.3.7. Pro: Ecosystems are under threat as a result of climate change.
1.3.7.1. Con: Melting Ice Caps has happened periodically for millions of years as the Earth warms and cools. Its disruption to Ecosystems is nothing new for the Earth.
1.3.7.1.1. Con: The rate glaciers are melting at is [unprecendented](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/28/speed-at-which-worlds-glaciers-are-melting-has-doubled-in-20-years) and contributes highly to rising sea levels.
1.3.7.2. Con: Literature indicates Acidification of the Ocean is well within bounds of normality - +/- 0.2pH units for parts of the Earth studied - both on small and large geological timescales
1.3.7.2.1. Pro: "[Seawater pH](http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/Oarp/media/images/PDF/UKOA-Variability_Trends.pdf) around the UK is highly variable, both spatially \(in three dimensions\) and temporally \(y2y, seasonally and on shorter time-scales\); Surface seawater pH in sub-tropical regions of the open North Atlantic is much less variable decreasing at a rate primarily determined by the rate of rising CO2 in atmosphere. in the open North Atlantic, unexpected changes have occurred, with y2y pH decreases being more rapid than anticipated in some regions:"
1.3.7.2.1.1. Con: The [given source](http://oceanacidification.org.uk) states that measurements and models indicate a decline in *global* pH of 0.1 units in surface waters, which means "potentially serious consequences for many marine ecosystems ".
1.3.7.2.2. Pro: "[oceanacidification.org.uk](http://www.oceanacidification.org.uk/Oarp/media/images/PDF/UKOA-Variability_Trends.pdf) -\> Time series have been started in Antarctic waters. The three years of coastal data collected so far show large seasonal and interannual variation in ocean pH, with strong influence of seasonal ice cover"
1.3.7.2.3. Pro: Historical plot of ocean pH since 1689 in tropical South Pacific showing variation well beyond 0.1pH change. [nature.com](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04922-1/figures/2)
1.3.7.2.4. Con: Generalised reference to past conditions is often not relevant the present time. Changes to present conditions are our concern here, with our specific conditions of solar activity, greenhouse gases, land use, and above all our vulnerable civilisation.
1.3.7.2.5. Con: -> See 1.3.3.2.2.1.
1.3.7.2.6. Pro: The pH level for corals of the mid-late Holocene from the South China Sea varied significantly by [22.2‰ to 25.5‰](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703708007266).
1.3.7.2.7. Con: There has been an unusually large decrease in pH level for Great Barrier Reef of Australia during the past [60 years](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703709000969) \(compared to a 200 year period\).
1.3.7.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.4.1.
1.3.7.4. Con: -> See 1.3.3.2.2.1.2.2.1.
1.3.7.5. Pro: Scientists predict a [massive biodiversity extinction](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229)(Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century.) \(the 6th in roughly 540 million years\) as a consequence of this climate change.
1.3.7.5.1. Pro: Climate change may be a factor behind the global decline [in insect numbers.](https://youtu.be/EAOnySPnt3E)
1.3.7.5.2. Pro: The recent [IPBES report](https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment) cites climate change as an important factor in putting 1,000,000 species \([~10-14% of all species](https://www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html)\) in imminent danger of extinction.
1.3.7.5.3. Pro: Climate change inevitably changes the living conditions in the habitats of many species on Earth. Some species can migrate or adapt \(e.g. hares and foxes in Europe\), but studies \([Example](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02121)\) have shown that as many as 15-37% of species will face extinction in the face of climate change.
1.3.7.5.4. Pro: Among the "nine planetary boundaries" discussed by the [Stockholm Resilience Centre](http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html), that of genetic diversity \(linked to biodiversity\) is one of the only three boundaries for which we have crossed the "zone of uncertainty", meaning that we are dealing with an extreme - and possibly existential - risk. Climate change alone is thought to threaten [a quarter or more](https://chge.hsph.harvard.edu/climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss) of the species alive today.
1.3.7.5.5. Con: Biodiversity loss is caused by "land use changes, exotic species invasions, nutrient enrichment", in addition to climate change, as reported by Nature. Thus, it's our resource-intensive consumption lifestyle that is threatening biodiversity directly, and not just climate change, as explained by [Nature](https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/causes-and-consequences-of-biodiversity-declines-16132475)
1.3.7.5.5.1. Con: It doesn't follow that because there are many factors causing biodiversity loss that some of those factors should not be addressed.  All factors effecting biodiversity loss should be addressed to the best of human ability, including climate change.
1.3.7.5.6. Con: The current climate trajectory is nothing out of the ordinary for the climate of the Earth in geological timescales of 100,000 years.[Vostok Ice Core Records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg)
1.3.7.5.6.1. Con: -> See 1.3.3.3.
1.3.7.5.6.2. Con: High intelligent species have a responsibility to act in order to prevent negative events affecting the common global well-being of sentient beings.
1.3.7.5.6.3. Con: Even if the trajectory is normal it still means that many species will die when the trajectory is kept.
1.3.7.5.6.4. Con: -> See 1.1.1.3.
1.3.7.5.6.5. Pro: CO₂ levels have been on average far greater for the last 600million years than present levels. [CO₂ Levels](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4)
1.3.7.5.6.5.1. Con: Most of the geological past of Earth , humans have not been around. Homo sapiens emerged about 305,000 years ago - around 0.008% of Earth time.
1.3.7.5.6.5.2. Con: Past conditions are irrelevant. This discussion is about what humanity should do about our present situation with its rapidly changing greenhouse effect.
1.3.7.5.6.5.3. Con: The abstract of the linked article contains these words "If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years"
1.3.7.5.6.5.4. Con: The link shows that if we continue to burn carbon, CO2 levels are projected to rise to levels that last obtained 200 million years ago.
1.3.7.5.6.5.5. Con: Average sea levels have been 200 metres higher as well during that period at their maximum.[Past sea level](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#cite_note-2)
1.3.7.5.6.5.6. Con: During this geological time-frame the Earth's climate and weather was drastically different than it is today, and almost-certainly could not support our civilization without massive human die-off.
1.3.7.5.6.5.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.7.1.
1.3.7.5.6.5.6.2. Pro: In the past, the [Sun was significantly weaker,](https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm)so the high levels of CO2 that existed then would be very problematical for us today.
1.3.7.5.6.5.6.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.4.6.
1.3.7.5.7. Con: Claiming a 6th mass extinction is just false hysteria. Extinction requires a huge destruction of oceanic species as they're highly mobile. While there may be a steady loss of biodiversity as a result of multiple reasons, claiming Climate Change is causing a mass extinction is not backed by scientific evidence.[6th Extinction Maybe Not](https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/02/is_there_really_a_sixth_great_extinction_maybe_not.html)
1.3.7.5.7.1. Con: Oceanic species might be highly mobile, but they can't escape [ocean acidification](https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification).
1.3.7.5.7.2. Con: The article referenced above considers the percent of species lost in the past one hundred years, however, mass extinction events take [much longer](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/)("However, the group at MIT improved they way they collect and analyze these mineral isotopes in the lab—their radiometric dating of the uranium and lead in the zircons show that the extinction event spanned 60,000 years, plus or minus 48,000 years. "). 12,000-108,000 years is very fast, geologically speaking.
1.3.7.5.8. Con: Even the IPCC's documentation from the [5th Assessment Report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) make no mention of a 'Mass Extinction'.
1.3.7.5.8.1. Con: It doesn't make any mention of healthy biodiversity predictions either.
1.3.7.5.8.2. Con: From the AR5 Report: "A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially  as  climate  change  interacts  with  other  stressors  \(high  confidence\).... Future risk is indicated to be high by the observation that natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years. "

[www.ipcc.ch](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf)
1.3.7.5.9. Pro: There is evidence of alarming biodiversity loss with the most extreme scenarios leading to the [sixth mass extinction](https://www.pnas.org/content/117/24/13596)(We conclude the human-caused sixth mass extinction is likely accelerating for several reasons. First, many of the species that have been driven to the brink will likely become extinct soon. Second, the distribution of those species highly coincides with hundreds of other endangered species, surviving in regions with high human impacts, suggesting ongoing regional biodiversity collapses. Third, close ecological interactions of species on the brink tend to move other species toward annihilation when they disappear—extinction breeds extinctions. Finally, human pressures on the biosphere are growing rapidly, and a recent example is the current coronavirus disease 2019 \(Covid-19\) pandemic, linked to wildlife trade. Our results reemphasize the extreme urgency of taking much-expanded worldwide actions to save wild species and humanity’s crucial life-support systems from this existential threat.) in the history of the earth.
1.3.7.5.9.1. Con: [Bellard et al. 2012](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x)(Most of these models indicate alarming consequences for biodiversity with worst-case scenarios leading to extinction rates that would qualify as the sixth mass extinction in the history of the earth \(Barnosky et al. 2011\). However, all current approaches have serious weaknesses. An evaluation of known mechanisms of climate impacts on biodiversity suggests that the lack of several key mechanisms in models may lead to either very large underestimations or overestimations of risks for biodiversity. \(p. 375\)) found that most models of mass biodiversity loss suffer serious weaknesses.
1.3.7.6. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.2.2.1.2.
1.4. Pro: Dealing with the effects of climate change in the future would be much more complicated than dealing with them now.
1.4.1. Con: Motivating people to deal with future catastrophic effects is hard. If we wait until the catastrophes are here, everyone will be motivated to deal with them.
1.4.2. Con: It will not be more difficult to deal with in the future as the work undertaken over the last thirty years were already difficult, costly and not effective.
1.4.2.1. Con: Renewable sources of energy are nowadays a viable option in therms of efficiency and economic costs. These solutions are not applied because of the monopoly that fossil-fuel companies maintain.
1.4.2.1.1. Pro: Records of solar production stand at $29.10 per MWh in Chile and of onshore wind production at  $30 per MWh in Morocco \([UNEP, p. 11](http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2017.pdf)\)
1.4.2.2. Pro: Global investment into reneweables stood at $241.6 billion in 2016 \([UNEP, p. 11](http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2017.pdf)\).
1.4.2.3. Con: Global subsidies for fossil fuels are in the order of magnitude of 5000 billion USD per year. This includes the hidden cost of health problems as well as cash subsidies. [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/07/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year)
1.4.2.3.1. Pro: The IMF, one of the world’s most respected financial institutions, [said](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf) that ending subsidies for fossil fuels would cut global carbon emissions by 20%.
1.4.2.4. Con: Investing in clean technology cannot be expected to have any effect on climate change, unless it causes an absolute reduction in CO2 emissions. Hence, it cannot be said that we "have been trying to deal with climate change" on a practical level.
1.4.2.5. Pro: There is no technically feasible replacement, globally, for the vast amounts of fossil fuel used currently within the energy mix.
1.4.2.5.1. Con: Fossil fuels are currently used because it is easier to extract them and burn them than the alternatives, but this is changing. Internal combustion engines are a matter of convenience, and they can run on alcohol or vegetable oil just fine.
1.4.2.5.1.1. Pro: [Solar and wind power](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-and-wind-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-for-the-first-time-a7509251.html) are now cheaper than fossil fuels. That could make fighting climate change into a profitable form of business for energy companies.
1.4.2.5.2. Con: We can stop relying on fossil fuels [using existing technology](https://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei/videos/1366280610074061/).
1.4.2.5.3. Con: The entire global fleet of coal plants [can be replaced with clean energy](http://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/How-to-retire-early-June-2020.pdf) plus storage by 2025. It is not only technically feasible - it could be done at a net annual saving of $US105 billion. And that saving doesn't include the secondary health and pollution costs of coal.
1.4.2.5.4. Con: 242 global corporations \(so far\) have committed to [100% renewable energy](https://www.there100.org/companies) - many by as early as 2025. They include major names like 3M, IKEA, Walmart and Wells Fargo.
1.4.2.5.5. Pro: There are [no energy sources with comparable energy density](https://rentar.com/impossible-replace-fossil-fuels-alternative-fuel-sources/) to fossil fuels.
1.4.2.5.6. Con: Nuclear power provides at least as much [energy density](https://www.greenworldinvestor.com/2011/07/07/nuclear-energy-efficiency-vs-fossil-fuels-oilgas-in-power-load-factorsenergy-density-and-waste/) as fossil fuels.
1.4.2.5.6.1. Con: The toxicity of nuclear power [makes it difficult to transport safely](https://rentar.com/impossible-replace-fossil-fuels-alternative-fuel-sources/) and thus difficult for humans to make use of on a large scale.
1.4.2.5.6.1.1. Con: In absence of evidence that transportation of nuclear fuel is a relevant problem, this is a non relevant argument.
1.4.2.5.6.2. Pro: The energy density of nuclear fuel is [many orders of magnitude higher](https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density) than that of fossil fuel.
1.4.2.5.7. Con: The fact that there is no technically feasible replacement globally for fossil fuel is largely due to the scale of energy use, humans could decrease their [rampant consumption.](https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/)(Consider a simple thought experiment. Imagine that by the end of this century, everyone in the world will use energy at the same rate per person that a typical American does today: a steady stream of 9.5 kilowatts \(kW\), averaged over the year. That’s roughly the power consumed by 18 electric-stove burners running nonstop on high, all day, every day.\n\nDoes that assumption seem unreasonable? It shouldn’t. This is what economic progress looks like. According to energy\nhistorian Vaclav Smil, Americans used just one-fifteenth as much useful energy per capita in 1860 as they do today. And during the twentieth century, he observes in his book Energy Transitions, annual energy use rose 17-fold globally while economic output soared by a factor of 16—even though nations had to invent and then build the enormous infrastructure needed to extract, process, and transport oil, gas, and electricity.)
1.4.2.5.8. Con: -> See discussion #6182: Nuclear power \([fission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)\) is desirable for sustainable energy production
1.4.2.5.9. Con: "Wood liquor" byproduct of [biochar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar#Energy_production:_Bio-oil_and_Syngas) should be possible to refine into gasoline with a small team of competent petrochemists tasked with the problem, for internal combustion engine purposes. Also those can run on vegetable oil or alcohol.
1.4.3. Pro: By 2050 climate change will present a [dire threat](https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf) to humanity. We are already overdue for action.
1.4.3.1. Pro: The "equilibrium" temperature, resulting from a given amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, [lags by decades](https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html) behind the "transient" climate response. This means that whenever we decide that the consequences have become intolerable, we will still have decades of continued warming locked in.
1.4.4. Pro: The [Stern Review](http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123161956/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summary.pdf), which assessed the impact of climate change on the economy, human life, and animal life, concluded that "the benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs".
1.4.4.1. Con: The Stern review was written in 2006, and is outdated.
1.4.4.2. Con: The Stern report has sharp criticism for its [discount rate](https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-shows-stern-inflated-climate-change-costs-25160) being over-inflated when compared to the IPCC's.
1.4.4.2.1. Con: Discount Rate is based on subjective judgments about \(in the present case\) how people assess value of the quality of life enjoyed by succeeding generations in terms of today's money.
1.4.4.3. Pro: The 2006 Stern report stated "The costs of inaction are far greater than the costs of action". In [a 2016 interview](https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2475435/the-stern-review-10-years-on-whats-changed), Lord Stern went on to say said: "...the report's key messages should have been stronger still."
1.4.4.4. Con: The Stern report has sharp criticism for the fact it was never truly 'peer reviewed' or [scientific](http://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-shows-stern-inflated-climate-change-costs-25160).
1.4.5. Con: Technological change will solve the problems climate change brings.
1.4.5.1. Pro: [Biochar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar) can remove atmospheric carbon sequestered in trees and thereby reduce CO2.
1.4.5.2. Con: Human intervention to stop climate change by use of geoengineering may make the situation worse in unforeseen ways.
1.4.5.2.1. Pro: Humans should not meddle in nature and its systems.
1.4.5.2.1.1. Con: This problem was caused by humans, even if unintentionally. We have already meddled.
1.4.5.2.2. Pro: Fixing global warming by [carbon capture](http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/) \(putting carbon in the air back into the soil\), might solve temperature problems but will not solve other air toxicity problems, leading to a greater imbalance on other situations.
1.4.5.2.2.1. Pro: Environmental chemists have [warned](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101109/full/news.2010.593.html) that complex interactions between chemistry and climate change might be making chemicals more toxic and the environment more susceptible to damage.
1.4.5.2.2.1.1. Pro: Melting sea ice in the Arctic Ocean exposes more seawater to the atmosphere, which may make it easier for toxic chemicals in arctic waters to escape into the air. So global warming could produce more [air pollution in the arctic](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101109/full/news.2010.593.html).
1.4.5.2.2.1.2. Pro: Climate change will cause differences in the movement, quality and distribution of water that could affect [stream acidity](https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101109/full/news.2010.593.html) all over the world. This would alter the toxicity of chemicals such as pharmaceuticals, which make their way into these streams when they are excreted into waster water and flushed down the toilet.
1.4.5.2.3. Con: An attempt at intervention will promote further research, which will accelerate understanding of current issues and better equip us for predicting future impacts and repercussions.
1.4.5.2.3.1. Con: It might not be possible to research the harms of geoengineering fast enough to mitigate their impact if used unwisely.
1.4.5.2.4. Con: There are many safe and smaller scale human interventions available to stop climate change that do not require geoengineering and other such drastic measures.
1.4.5.2.4.1. Pro: Transitioning to [electric cars](https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change) would cut emissions and greatly reduce the impact of climate change.
1.4.5.2.4.1.1. Con: The beneficial impact of transitioning to electric vehicles depends on [rapid decarbonisation](https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change)(A transition from conventional petrol and diesel vehicles to EVs plays a large role in mitigation pathways that limit warming to meet Paris Agreement targets. However, it depends on rapid decarbonisation of electricity generation to be effective. If countries do not replace coal and, to a lesser extent, gas, then electric vehicles will still remain far from being “zero emissions”.) of electricity generation which is, in practice, a drastic measure.
1.4.5.2.4.1.1.1. Con: In the UK, farmers are [swapping](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/28/solar-farm-proposals-for-east-of-england-more-than-double) crops for solar panels - indicating that there are rapidly changing incentives that promote decarbonisation.
1.4.5.2.4.1.2. Pro: Electric vehicles in some nations produce a [third of the CO2](https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change)(In the UK in 2019, the lifetime emissions per kilometre of driving a Nissan Leaf EV were about three times lower than for the average conventional car, even before accounting for the falling carbon intensity of electricity generation during the car’s lifetime.) of their traditionally fuelled counterparts, without accounting for improvements to electricity production that are likely to occur within a car's lifetime.
1.4.5.2.5. Pro: As the necessity of geoengineering is [highly disputed,](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/24/18273198/climate-change-russ-george-unilateral-geoengineering)(“Climate change should be tackled by reducing emissions, not by altering ocean ecosystems,” Dr. Paul Johnston, head of Greenpeace International’s science unit, said in the ETC Group press release.\n\nRecounting the experience years later, George remains embittered by what he sees as unfair treatment by the media and advocacy groups.\n\n“There was this maelstrom of anti-Planktos, anti-Russ George, anti-ocean restoration publicity,” he told me. He seethed at what he saw as inaccurate claims by critics, including allegations that he’d be dumping near protected areas and their representation of the scientific consensus as having settled that ocean iron fertilization could never work.) there is little research into its efficacy which would makes it quite unreliable to implement at a later date.
1.4.5.3. Pro: Technology is developing very fast. Fighting climate change can be a motivator to indirectly improve/innovate industries.
1.4.5.3.1. Pro: Countries who invest in climate change could be rewarded economically.
1.4.5.3.1.1. Pro: For example, China's investment in solar technology has allowed them to [dominate the market](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-china-is-dominating-the-solar-industry/), and given them opportunities for new markets.
1.4.5.3.2. Pro: Tesla cars - specialists in electric cars - are making rapid technological developments that help in battling climate change.
1.4.5.3.2.1. Pro: Car batteries from Tesla are now at the tipping point of being cheaper and more efficient than combustion engines.
1.4.5.3.2.2. Pro: [The Tesla roadster](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/17/tesla-roadster-electric-supercar-elon-musk-fast) performance are measured to be equal or better than expensive supercars: "even at the not insignificant sum of $200,000 the Roadster will actually be comparatively cheap for its performance levels.""
1.4.5.3.3. Con: Climate regulation and carbon [tax stifle innovation](https://fee.org/articles/high-tax-rates-hurt-innovation-and-prosperity-new-data-suggest/)(...do taxes affect innovation? If innovation is the result of intentional effort and taxes reduce the expected net return from it, the answer to this question should be yes.) in industries that are carbon-intensive.
1.4.5.3.3.1. Con: By [internalizing costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax) that would otherwise be external, carbon pricing [induces innovation](http://www2.itif.org/2018-carbon-tax-report.pdf) where it is needed.
1.4.5.3.3.2. Con: A [recent MIT study](https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-media/jp-news-outreach/study-carbon-tax-win-win-win-americas-future) suggests that an emission tax, with proceeds plowed into energy R&D and social programs is actually a win-win-win.  "But with the carbon tax there are virtually no serious tradeoffs."
1.4.5.3.3.2.1. Con: "New IIASA-led research has found that a single climate mitigation scheme applied to all sectors, such as a global carbon tax, could have a serious impact on agriculture and result in far more widespread hunger and food insecurity than the direct impacts of climate change. Smarter, more inclusive policies are needed instead." [phys.org](https://phys.org/news/2018-07-climate-taxes-agriculture-food-insecurity.html)
1.4.5.3.3.2.1.1. Con: "[Surcharges](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat-and-dairy-to-cut-emissions-and-save-lives-study-urges) of 40% on beef and 20% on milk would compensate for climate damage and deter people from consuming as much unhealthy food".
1.4.5.3.3.2.2. Con: " A $50 per ton tax on carbon emissions would raise the average cost of energy by 15-25 percent, "[researchgate.net](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240617470_Taxes_Agriculture_and_Climate_Change)
1.4.5.3.3.3. Con: Fossil fuel companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $5.3tn \(£3.4tn\) a year, [equivalent to $10m a minute every day,](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf) in order to support societies current dependent on fossil fuels. If reliance on fossil fuels lessens, that money would not be wasted.
1.4.5.3.3.3.1. Con: fossil fuels are not subsidised - tax benefits are granted for exploratory purposes because of the extreme financial risk and zero profit realised during that stage.
1.4.5.3.3.3.1.1. Con: The [WTO definition of subsidies](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission), accepted by the UK and 163 other nations, includes “government revenue that is otherwise due, foregone or not collected” such as reduced tax rates.
1.4.5.3.3.3.1.2. Con: The International Energy Agency [recognises fossil fuel subsidies](https://www.iea.org/weo/energysubsidies/), and measures it at $300 Billion in 2017.
1.4.5.3.3.3.1.3. Pro: The UK claims that they “[do not subsidise fossil fuels](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission)”.
1.4.5.3.3.3.1.3.1. Con: The UK acknowledged that they use fossil fuel subsidies in 2009 as part of the [G20 pledge to phase out ineffecient fossil fuel subsidies](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/uk-revealed-as-eu-champion-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies/).
1.4.5.3.3.3.1.4. Con: The [EU recognises fossil fuel subsidies](https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/uk-revealed-as-eu-champion-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies/), and allocates an estimated €55 billion in public funding across the EU.
1.4.5.3.3.3.2. Con: Petroleum alone attracts a huge amount of taxation, [over 0.42 cents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_Australia) per litre in Australia for instance. That isn't a subsidy, it is direct taxation. If the world had no fossil fuel use there'd be a huge tax burden which would be required to be paid by renewables.
1.4.5.3.3.3.3. Con: This study is using "[Post Tax Energy Subsidies](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defining-fossil-fuel-subsidies)", which includes a corrective tax. This is not the traditional understanding of a subsidy, where producers receive government money to allow consumers to pay less than the market price for goods.
1.4.5.3.3.3.3.1. Pro: Post-tax consumer subsidies are typically much higher than pre-tax consumer subsidies, primarily due to the large environmental cost of energy consumption. [IMF - Page 5.](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf)
1.4.5.3.3.3.3.2. Con: Being a post-tax measurement means that the numbers quoted are calculated after any environmental tax income recieved by the government. This is appropiate when discussing climate change, because if the figures were pre-tax, and the subsidy was scrapped, then the environmental tax revenue would also be lost.
1.4.5.3.3.3.4. Con: actual subsidies for fossil fuels are a tiny fraction of the quoted $5trillion when using the true definition of the word subsidy.[eia.gov](https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf). although this report is US only, the U.S. represents close to 25% of all global ossil fuel consumption.
1.4.5.3.3.3.4.1. Con: The report only looks at US federal subsidies, and acknowledges that it "does not encompass all subsidies that affect energy markets and should therefore be viewed in context and in conjunction with related information from other sources".
1.4.5.3.3.4. Pro: A carbon tax is harmful.
1.4.5.3.3.4.1. Con: -> See 1.4.5.3.3.2.
1.4.5.3.3.4.2. Con: A [cap-and-trade system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading) allows the market to regulate CO2 emissions.
1.4.5.3.3.4.3. Con: A carbon tax can have zero effect on the total tax burden, since it can replace taxes on other items.
1.4.5.3.3.4.4. Con: An alternative would be a [wealth tax](https://theconversation.com/a-wealth-tax-forces-those-responsible-for-climate-change-to-pay-for-it-105547) which would not affect the poor negatively. There is a well-established link between income and emissions \(many vulnerable regions produce fewer emissions\).
1.4.5.3.3.4.4.1. Pro: Another option would be a [Robin Hood policy](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46522126) such as a policy implemented in Australia which deliberately re-directed carbon taxes to help the worse-off. It took the $5bn Australian dollars \($3.6bn; £2.9bn\) of annual profits from a carbon tax on industry and diverted it to the poor by introducing lower income taxes and higher welfare payments.
1.4.5.3.3.4.5. Pro: If a government imposed a flat tax on motor fuel, [as President Macron did](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46522126), that hits the poor hardest because it eats their disposable income.
1.4.5.3.3.4.6. Con: Climate change could impoverish families and businesses through [other means](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46522126), such as; carbon emissions which are likely to damage crops; increase health care costs from heat-waves; and droughts; making flooding worse; inundate homes from sea level rise - and much more. Increased taxes over a shorter period of time may be a better option.
1.4.5.3.3.4.7. Con: Eleven teams participated in a detailed [study](https://globalnews.ca/news/4338040/carbon-tax-economy-climate-change/) which examined the economic and environmental impact of an economy-wide carbon tax in the United States. Every single team found the same result: not only does a carbon tax lead to substantially fewer emissions, it also could have long-term positive economic growth.
1.4.5.3.3.4.8. Pro: Plans in the [Irish Budget](https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/families-to-pay-200-in-extra-taxes-over-states-failure-to-hit-its-climate-targets-37258909.html) to increase carbon taxes and equalise the price between petrol and diesel will see some families being hit for an extra €200 a year. This is not feasible for some families and will cause severe problems.
1.4.5.3.3.5. Con: Energy-related R&D [doesn't crowd out innovation](https://www.nber.org/papers/w15423) in other sectors.
1.4.5.3.3.6. Con: Market forces put a very low price on CO₂ \(ETS market\), between [4 and 10€/tCO2](http://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-emissionsrechte) in 2017.
1.4.5.3.4. Pro: Developments in artifical intelligence have [already](https://thenextweb.com/artificial-intelligence/2018/03/02/deepminds-new-robots-learned-how-to-teach-themselves/) shown that machines can develop the capacity to solve problems independently. If these systems can be applied to wider and more complex contexts, these machines may develop the capacity to provide creative solutions to issues like climate change.
1.4.5.3.4.1. Con: It has proved difficult to apply these systems to a wider context. One problem is the difficulty of building generalized learning techniques, since [AI has issues carrying experiences from one context to another](https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/artificial-intelligence/the-promise-and-challenge-of-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence).
1.4.5.3.4.2. Con: If we assume there isn't a ceiling to technological progress and thus that the application of such technology would be theoretically possible, it's likely that by the time any such solution would be discovered, climate change would already have led to the demise of the planet.
1.4.5.3.5. Pro: -> See 1.4.2.5.1.1.
1.4.5.3.6. Pro: Governments and businesses are successfully investing billions in accelerating new technologies and innovations.
1.4.5.3.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.3.2.2.
1.4.5.4. Con: It's possible that such technology doesn't exist because it's not fundamentally feasible.
1.4.5.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.2.
1.4.5.4.2. Pro: Technological advancement is [unpredictable](https://www.upworthy.com/11-ridiculous-future-predictions-from-the-1900-worlds-fair-and-3-that-came-true), unreliable and constrained by physical laws. After many decades of research and development, we still don't have a cure for cancer, viable nuclear fusion or a foothold on any plant other than the Earth. To assume we can ignore climate change because "technology will fix it" is absurdly optimistic.
1.4.5.4.3. Con: The 80 no-government-required commercial solutions modelled by Project Drawdown's 70+ independent analysts are [being acted on today](http://www.drawdown.org/solutions). These are all no-regrets, evidence-based community and business development opportunities \(and also expected to generate up to 1 billion new jobs\).
1.4.5.5. Con: Technology [cannot](https://www.nap.edu/read/989/chapter/9#266) remedy a profound loss of [biodiversity](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change+biodiversity&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DVKm0BruD7GAJ).
1.4.5.5.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.7.5.
1.4.5.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.7.5.5.
1.4.5.5.3. Con: Retaining biodiversity is not a critical part of fighting against climate change, outside of what is necessary for human survival.
1.4.5.6. Pro: Farming technology has contributed to [record crop yields](http://www.ift.org/food-technology/daily-news/2014/february/12/agricultural-technologies-could-increase-global-crop-yields-up-to-67.aspx). The trend is not reversing.
1.4.5.6.1. Con: GMOs have led to the evolution of [superweeds and super pests](https://www.farmaid.org/issues/gmos/gmos-top-5-concerns-for-family-farmers/), that are able to devastate large populations of crops.
1.4.6. Pro: The cost of fighting climate change will only grow with time. It would be less expensive overall to deal with it now.
1.4.6.1. Pro: Because only small, incremental shifts are needed in the short term, fighting climate change now will be cheaper than an overnight shift later on.
1.4.6.1.1. Pro: In order to meet longer term goals of meeting large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, nations can set interim goals. This was done in the [Paris Agreement](http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php) and is reflected in targets set in domestic legislation such as the [UK's Climate Change Act](https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/the-legal-landscape/the-climate-change-act/).
1.4.6.1.2. Pro: Adjustments to meet initial changes are likely to make future changes more simple. For example, policies that have encouraged the development of solar power have made solar panels [much cheaper](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/) in the last decade.
1.4.6.2. Pro: Some measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will [save money](https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/a-cost-curve-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction). A good example is energy efficiency measures such as building insulation or smart grids.
1.4.6.3. Pro: There are a number of [low-cost options](https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/a-cost-curve-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction) to reduce carbon emissions, including reforestation and nuclear power.
1.4.6.4. Con: The cost is not low even in relation with Earth GDP. The cost to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions is expected to be [200 billion USD per year](http://forestindustries.eu/content/fighting-climate-change-might-cost-300-billion-usd-year-2020).
1.4.6.4.1. Con: Comparing the projected future cost of reducing GHGs against current GDP is bad methodology.  The proper comparison \(ignoring social costs\) is against future losses in GDP.  The reference assumes at least $100B/year will be needed to mitigate damages from climate change already incurred.
1.4.6.4.2. Con: Earth GDP is [$75 trillion.](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?) Your quoted cost is 0.26% of this, so the cost is low.
1.4.6.5. Con: Private benefits of fossil fuels are likely higher than the social cost of carbon, see for example [this working paper](https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-07-2017.pdf&site=24).
1.4.6.5.1. Con: The working paper assumes that SCC is a continuous function over time \(e.g. 3% reduction in today's GDP, projected forward\).  But climate science anticipates discontinuities:
["Many estimates do not account for the possibility of large-scale singular events and irreversibility, tipping points and other important factors, especially those that are difficult to monetize, such as loss of biodiversity."](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf)\(p 79\)
1.4.6.5.2. Con: As the article admits, it is really measuring the value of energy, which can be created without carbon emissions. So although the article states that it provides a private value of carbon over $400/ton, this doesn't provide the marginal private value of carbon over and above carbon-free electricity generation. [This paper](https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf) suggests that the marginal cost of changing to renewables is lower than the social cost of carbon.
1.4.7. Pro: Positive feedback loops caused by human-induced changes can take us to a point of no return with more self-reinforcing and accelerated warming.
1.4.7.1. Pro: According to [NASA](https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/), the atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels haven't risen above 300ppm \(parts per million\) for at least 400,000 years, and have consistently stayed between about 180ppm and 300ppm for the same time, up until 1950 when the carbon-dioxide levels reached above 300ppm. The carbon-dioxide levels have continued to rise after that historic 1950 mark, up to 400ppm, showing that we are going even farther out of the balance of the usual of the Earth's carbon-dioxide levels.
1.4.7.2. Pro: As snow and ice melt, they [reflect less solar radiation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo), meaning more solar radiation is absorbed by the Earth, and the planet's surface correspondingly heats up faster. Thus existing warming, which melts snow and ice, contributes to even faster warming in future.
1.4.7.3. Pro: Increased methane emissions from [permafrost](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0592-8) could ultimately lead to even more warming.
1.4.7.4. Pro: [A recent study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0592-8) shows melting permafrost is now producing ~1.6 GtC/year. This is a positive feedback that is happening now.
1.4.7.5. Pro: Accelerating feedback loops such as forest fires and permafrost melt and emission of greenhouse gases by permafrost are already starting.
1.4.8. Con: By the end of the century the human societies will be so rich that coping with the effects of climate change will be easy.
1.4.8.1. Con: If the climate continues to change as it does today we will need to reinforce many of our current buildings to be able to handle more storms
1.4.8.2. Con: Money has no value without a supportive biological environment that provides food, air, water, etc. Without these things, wealth will vanish, and societies will collapse.
1.4.8.2.1. Pro: According to the IPCC, under BAU scenario, the global mean temperature will rise up to +12°C warming in artic regions, cf. Figure SPM.7 in AR5[Summary for policymakers](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf) \(mean +4,8°C\).
1.4.8.2.1.1. Pro: Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lowers the protein content of food crops, as rapidly growing plants are more sugar. \(source: piece on NPR radio attributing bee die-offs to lower protein content in pollens; see also [www.nature.com](https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108) and similar more alarming media\)
1.4.8.2.1.2. Con: The IPCC cannot be considered an independent source for information.
1.4.8.2.1.2.1. Con: The scientific community agree with the IPCC and accept it as a reliable source
1.4.8.2.1.2.1.1. Con: The scientific community has to make their research IPPC acceptable in order to have it presented. This is connected to funding, and this is what keeps the scientists going. This is about freedom. For example artists in the soviet union were free to make art in any way that they wanted. But in order to receive funding they had to make socially acceptable art. The rules are laid out. You can accept them and thrive, or go against them and starve. Of course you are free to starve.
1.4.8.2.1.2.1.1.1. Con: This claim about funding is as ubiquitous as it is misleading. On this video a climate scientist gives[an illuminating breakdown of how funding works.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8Jo9QN0qA)
1.4.8.2.1.2.1.2. Con: Climate change has not been substantiated by science. There are many former IPCC scientists who doubt the results of the scientific consensus. [Scientists who doubt the results](https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/)
1.4.8.2.1.2.1.2.1. Con: Even if one argues the models are wrong, the uncertainty about the change of the climate prompts action. [\(Nassim Nicholas Taleb et. al - Climate models and precautionary measures\)](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/climateletter.pdf)
1.4.8.2.1.2.1.2.2. Con: Some extreme views are [caused by ideology](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0520-3.epdf?author_access_token=WqVkD3XNf9Kx2usQGjPTrtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NCPz-kWDa8SCyuAJLdVCIzFoKX7QHmSaWH8axpfCzbCA0isRFoup_nm2OdXtuMvBrUJt8bIe1TIW1GKwzCPyH4_R28gsFsUJpipMZSnORzGw%3D%3D) and not scientific method. \(p. 255\)
1.4.8.2.1.2.2. Pro: The IPCC is paid for by government to produce policy detail.
1.4.8.2.1.2.2.1. Con: Hundreds of experts are involved on a [voluntary basis](http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml).
1.4.8.2.1.2.2.2. Pro: The [US](https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-taxpayers-cover-nearly-half-cost-un-s-global-warming-panel) provides about half of the IPCC' budget.
1.4.8.2.1.2.3. Pro: The IPCC has a remit of explaining AGW but not to question if it exists.
1.4.8.2.1.2.4. Pro: The IPCC does not do their own research but collates independent research, but also whip it into shape for presentation. On the fence research is rewritten by the IPPC working teams to make sure it represents the positive case for AGW.
1.4.8.2.1.2.5. Pro: Professor Pielke criticised the IPPC for representing his views with a certainty about climate prediction in 95 that he did not believe was justified. [pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com](https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/receipes-0011.jpg)
1.4.8.2.1.2.5.1. Con: Despite his criticism of the prediction being presented with certainty , the prediction as proved to be correct.
1.4.8.3. Con: The above implies continued economic growth, but it is impossible to expand forever into a finite space. Therefore we have to make a transition to a [steady state economy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy)
1.4.8.4. Con: -> See 1.4.4.
1.4.8.5. Pro: [GDP](https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=100) is expected to grow under common climate change predictions.
1.4.8.6. Pro: With higher GDP, human health [improves](https://genus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41118-019-0071-0).
1.4.8.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.5.
1.4.8.6.2. Con: Health levels are sometimes higher in countries with lower GDP than in countries with higher GDP.
1.4.8.6.2.1. Pro: GDP per capita in Chile is four times lower than in the USA, but the [life expectancy](https://www.google.de/search?client=opera&q=life+expectancy+chile&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) is higher in Chile than in the USA.
1.4.8.7. Con: An increasingly wealthy planet only means that wealth is concentrated within the hands of a few. It doesn't mean that everyone has the power to better adapt to climate change.
1.4.8.7.1. Con: Having inequalities is good.
1.4.8.7.1.1. Pro: [Poverty is the problem](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/poverty-not-income-inequality-is-our-modern-proble/), not inequality. The income divide between someone earning $300.000 and someone earning $ 3 million is likely to cause only minor problems.
1.4.8.7.1.1.1. Con: The sample numbers represent only a small segment of inequality. As long as there is scarcity of resources, inequality will always correlate with some degree of poverty.
1.4.8.7.1.1.2. Pro: Inequality does not create poverty in [itself](https://mises.org/blog/inequality-doesnt-create-poverty).
1.4.8.7.1.1.2.1. Con: Competing studies indicate that the effects are [not linear](https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3876.pdf), at best, and [the main cause](http://www.epi.org/blog/inequality-main-persistent-poverty/), at worst.
1.4.8.7.1.1.2.2. Con: The question isn't whether inequality "creates poverty," but rather whether it exacerbates the effects of poverty in the allocation of scarce resources.
1.4.8.7.1.2. Con: Inequality can lead to political turmoil \([MacCulloch, p. 109](http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/426881?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)\).
1.4.8.7.1.2.1. Con: Whether economic inequality leads to political turmoil depends highly on measurements of both \([Giskemo, p. 6](https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/4379-exploring-the-relationship-between-socio-economic.pdf)\). MacCulloch's study makes use of public opinion surveys that only measure a positive attitude to revolution. This is hardly indicative as to whether people will engage in actual political turmoil.
1.4.8.7.1.3. Con: Income inequality is linked to [health problems](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43780/).
1.4.8.7.1.4. Pro: Income inequalities work as incentives for hard work.
1.4.8.7.1.4.1. Con: Whether inequality incentivizes hard work depends on the degree of inequality. At a certain point, inequality has the opposite effect and disincentivizes hard work \([Bertelsmann Stiftung. p. 2](http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Impulse___2015-05_income_inequality_and_growth.pdf)\).
1.4.8.7.1.4.1.1. Con: This is only at the very extremes of income inequality and not applicable to any practical setting. In one of the most unequal countries, [South Africa](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html), employees still show intrinsic motivation and are motivated by rewards \([Nujjoo & Meyer, p. 6](https://www.sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/viewFile/442/532)\).
1.4.8.7.1.4.2. Con: When the inequality is fuelled by underpinning genetic disadvantage, incentivising hard work misses the entire point.
1.4.8.7.1.4.3. Con: How people respond to hard work could also be genetically enhanced. We could edit out extreme laziness.
1.4.8.7.1.5. Con: Economic inequality is [generally assumed](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/06/why-income-inequality-is-bad-for-growth/) to be bad for economic growth, first and foremost because it reduces educational opportunities.
1.4.8.7.1.5.1. Con: Innovations create inequalities by inventors or entrepreneurs becoming rich. Thus, economic inequality is a by-product of economic growth.
1.4.8.7.1.5.1.1. Con: This is only one, marginal, contributor to inequality.
1.4.8.7.1.5.1.2. Con: The evidence on the contribution of innovation to inequality is at best contested. There is a persuasive line of reasoning that the disruptive nature of innovation actually leads to [less wealth inequality](https://salon.thefamily.co/a-valley-divided-do-startups-widen-the-inequality-gap-7bb783237eb8#.txpplfyjg).
1.4.8.7.1.6. Con: Wilkinson and Pickett show that income inequality is associated with many kinds of social and medical problems [The Spirit Level](https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level)
1.4.8.8. Con: The increase of economic wealth [implies](https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2017/the-correlation-between-gdp-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions/) the emission of more greenhouse gases, which worsens the global warming and makes its effects harder to cope with
1.4.9. Con: Injury/mortality rates have [dropped](http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf) 1000 fold over the last 100 years of global warming, this indicates technology improvements override any increase in danger from extreme weather events.
1.4.9.1. Con: Even if we can predict bad weather like hurricanes they will still do extensive damage that could be avoided or minimized by fighting climate change.
1.4.9.2. Con: Scientists claim that weather forecasts can't ever be improved to see beyond [about two weeks](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190415154722.htm).
1.4.9.3. Pro: Better computing capacity allows us to calculate more complex models with more variables.
1.5. Pro: Climate change is [predicted](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/) to cause extensive human suffering.
1.5.1. Con: The harnessing of energy responsible for climate change has caused [unprecedented](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-unprecedented-expansion-of-the-global-middle-class-2/) human flourishing. Products that result in climate change provide comfort and extend human lives \(plastics, refrigerants, refined metals, etc.\)
1.5.1.1. Con: We can continue to have these benefits by powering the tools we use from fuels that do not produce CO2.
1.5.2. Con: Future generations will suffer from the huge capital loss wasted on fighting global warming today.
1.5.2.1. Con: Once basic needs have been met, economic growth, specifically greater access to consumer goods, does not [necessarily](https://hbr.org/2016/04/when-economic-growth-doesnt-make-countries-happier) lead to greater human happiness. Future generations would benefit from a shift away from today's mindless consumerism, which is totally unsustainable even without the climate crisis.
1.5.2.2. Con: Climate change may cause extensive infrastructural damage, leading to instability and large financial losses \([US CCAR 2014](https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/downloads/CCARprint_wForward_e.pdf)\).
1.5.2.3. Pro: Climate change cannot be reversed in the near future without [collapsing](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-carbon-report/weaning-u-s-power-sector-off-fossil-fuels-would-cost-4-7-trillion-study-idUSKCN1TS0GX) the economy, which would cause extensive human suffering.
1.5.2.3.1. Con: Climate change may interrupt [commercial activity](https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/downloads/CCARprint_wForward_e.pdf).
1.5.2.3.2. Con: The [current economic system](https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-capitalism-is) encourages exploitation and inequality, its collapse could mean that it is [replaced](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism) with a much better system.
1.5.2.4. Con: A business-as-usual approach will also result in catastrophic loss of capital.
1.5.2.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.2.2.
1.5.2.4.2. Pro: The economic impact of climate change is already being felt. The cost to the USA is projected to be [$360 billion a year](https://feu-us.org/case-for-climate-action-us/), on average, in economic losses, damages and health costs, during the next decade. This is about half of the expected growth of the US economy.
1.5.2.4.3. Pro: Even if true, this would not diminish the need for developing the tools required to fight climate change. On the contrary, it would only increase the effort \("fight"\) we need to put up.
1.5.2.5. Con: -> See 1.4.8.5.
1.5.3. Pro: Future generations will have [less biodiversity](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/23/destruction-of-nature-as-dangerous-as-climate-change-scientists-warn) than we have currently. This loss of biodiversity represents an inherent loss for human beings.
1.5.3.1. Pro: Climate change is becoming a [top threat to biodiversity](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-becoming-a-top-threat-to-biodiversity/) according to a UN-backed biodiversity study.
1.5.3.2. Pro: Current biodiversity trends are [jeopardising the UN's goals](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/23/destruction-of-nature-as-dangerous-as-climate-change-scientists-warn)(In many regions, the report says current biodiversity trends are jeopardising UN global development goals to provide food, water, clothing and housing. They also weaken natural defences against extreme weather events, which will become more common due to climate change.) to provide food, water, clothing and shelter to the global poor. They also weaken natural defences against extreme weather events.
1.5.3.3. Con: There is no such thing as inherent worth, things only have worth if people [decide they do.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10427719700000059)
1.5.3.4. Pro: As the world functions through [interconnected systems](https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/earth/ask-a-scientist-about-our-environment/what-will-happen-if-the-animals-disappear), species loss could be highly deleterious.
1.5.4. Pro: Climate change will increase the occurrence of extreme weather events, favoring [flooding, storms, heatwaves and wildfires.](http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/09/extreme-weather-whats-climate-change-got-do-it)
1.5.4.1. Pro: If we do not act and change the climate we may face a [new ice age](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research).
1.5.4.1.1. Pro: Warming temperatures disrupt vital [ocean currents](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/question7801.htm), such as the Gulf Stream, which transport warmth to otherwise cooler regions. As a result, the average temperatures in the affected regions will significantly drop, which potentially triggers ice ages.
1.5.4.1.1.1. Pro: [Studies suggest](https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/1200-year-mini-ice-age-was-caused-by-global-warming) that a collapse of the Gulf stream had once caused a short ice age in the Northern hemisphere roughly 12.000 years ago.
1.5.4.1.2. Con: The cooling effect of a grand solar minimum would [not override](https://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-mini-ice-age.htm) the effect of our enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
1.5.4.1.3. Con: Our planet has so many climate inputs that the system is far too complicated and our understanding is far too limited to even begin to predict when we will approach a cold/warm phase in the future. The suggestion that the planet will reach a cold phase in the future seems irrelevant as we understand that the planet cycles through cold and warm phases over huge geological time periods. This discussion concerns the role humans have on short to medium term change.
1.5.4.1.4. Con: Scientists do not expect the next ice age for [at least 50,000 years](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287.full).
1.5.4.1.5. Pro: Optimum temperatures are as warm or warmer than present. The dangers of a future ice age are therefore greater than any dangers posed by global warming.
1.5.4.1.5.1. Con: Our food production systems have evolved in relative climate stability over many thousands of years. The unprecedented pace of change caused by human carbon emissions is greater than our current ability to adapt agriculturally. It's not an arbitrary temperature but the one at which we can produce the most food.
1.5.4.1.5.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.3.
1.5.4.1.5.2. Pro: Humanity has [thrived with a warmer world](https://www.livescience.com/28219-holocene-epoch.html) provided by the Holocene and the Holocene climate.
1.5.4.1.5.2.1. Pro: In the past, cold periods brought disease, death, and famine for humanity.
1.5.4.1.5.2.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.4.4.1.1.
1.5.4.2. Pro: A climate with higher CO₂ will increase the threat of [heat waves](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-emissions-climate-change-europe-heatwave-paleogene-global-warming-a8470436.html), [tsunamis](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180815141444.htm) and more intense [hurricanes](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-the-extreme-2017-hurricane-season-driven-by-climate-change/).
1.5.4.2.1. Con: Some extreme weather events, such as tornadoes, have been [declining in frequency](https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png), [not increasing](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/10/tornado-decline-dings-climate-change-narrative-ber/).
1.5.4.2.2. Pro: Climate change has [contributed](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02384-z) up to three degrees \(Celsius\) to the [2019 record heatwave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave) that swept through Europe.
1.5.4.2.3. Pro: According to a [peer-reviewed scientific article](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322)from a renowned scientific journal, 74% of the world population are threatened by deadly heat by 2100. If we drastically change emissions we can only lower it down to 48%.
1.5.4.3. Pro: Climate change is likely to cause [drought](https://www.c2es.org/content/drought-and-climate-change/) in poor countries.
1.5.4.3.1. Pro: Poor countries, having scarce financial resources, will find it particularly difficult to recover from damage to their clean water supplies.
1.5.5. Pro: Climate change will affect food security globally.
1.5.5.1. Pro: Climate change is also projected to [exacerbate deficiencies](http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2017/02/14/1611576114.full.pdf) in micronutrients like zinc and selenium.
1.5.5.1.1. Con: Whether we get enough trace elements will be dictated by our future diet, which may include a general supplement to ensure full coverage.
1.5.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.2.4.
1.5.5.3. Pro: This will even affect some rich countries' ability to feed their populations.
1.5.5.3.1. Pro: Countries, such as the UK, which rely on food imports could face real difficulties feeding their populations in a time of both worsening global security and decreasing global food supply.[UK stats showing food import dependency](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-global-and-uk-supply)
1.5.5.4. Con: Food insecurity may be minimised using [vertical stack farming.](https://www.fwi.co.uk/arable/crop-management/why-vertical-farming-is-growing-in-the-uk)
1.5.5.4.1. Pro: [Vertical farming](https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sustainability-and-environment/how-vertical-farming-is-taking-off/652820.article)(Produce is grown indoors under LED lights, with a plant’s roots typically suspended in nutrient-rich water or mist. Temperature, humidity and light is carefully regulated within the sealed environment, and more plants can be packed into a space, on racks that can be seven storeys high.\n\nWhile yield per square metre, low water consumption and lack of soil or pesticides have long been touted as the method’s main selling points, another one is becoming increasingly important: a guaranteed, year-round supply situated right where it is needed.) may be able to fill shortfalls in agricultural production as it is [highly spatially efficient](https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-you-should-know-about-vertical-farming-4144786)(Increased And Year-Round Crop Production: Vertical farming allows us to produce more crops from the same square footage of growing area. In fact, 1 acre of an indoor area offers equivalent production to at least 4-6 acres of outdoor capacity.5 According to an independent estimate, a 30-story building with a basal area of 5 acres can potentially produce an equivalent of 2,400 acres of conventional horizontal farming.6 Additionally, year-round crop production is possible in a controlled indoor environment which is completely controlled by vertical farming technologies.).
1.5.5.4.2. Con: Vertical farming [may not scale](https://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/vertical-farming-how-big-too-big) effectively, meaning that complex systems cannot be incorporated.
1.5.5.4.3. Con: There is no incentive to invest in vertical stack farming as the technology used [depreciates](https://globalecoguy.org/no-vertical-farms-wont-feed-the-world-5313e3e961c0)(First, these systems are really expensive to build. The shipping container systems developed by Freight Farms, for example, cost between $82,000 and $85,000 per container — an astonishing sum for a box that just grows greens and herbs. Just one container costs as much as 10 entire acres of prime American farmland — which is a far better investment, both in terms of food production and future economic value. Just remember: farmland has the benefit of generally appreciating in value over time, whereas a big metal box is likely to only decrease in value.) over time, making it a less valuable investment than farm land.
1.5.5.4.3.1. Con: Farmland is likely to be less of a long term sustainable investment with [unstable future weather patterns.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/how-to-live-with-it/weather.html)
1.5.5.4.4. Con: Vertical stack farming is [highly inefficient](https://globalecoguy.org/no-vertical-farms-wont-feed-the-world-5313e3e961c0)(Finally, indoor farms use a lot of energy and materials to operate. The container farms from Freight Farms, for example, use about 80 kilowatt-hours of electricity a day to power the lights and pumps. That’s nearly 2–3 times as much electricity as a typical \(and still very inefficient\) American home, or about 8 times the electricity used by an average San Francisco apartment. And on the average American electrical grid, this translates to emitting 44,000 pounds of CO2 per container per year, from electricity alone, not counting any additional heating costs. This is vastly more than the emissions it would take to ship the food from someplace else.) with regards to its energy use.
1.5.5.4.4.1. Con: Much of this energy could be generated through [renewable resources.](https://octopus.energy/blog/vertical-farms/)(Independent of the surrounding climate, vertical farming is less exposed to these threats and is a more sustainable practice. It demands ~⅕ of the land required by traditional methods, 70-95% less water, 0 pesticides and 95% less fertiliser. If supplied by renewable energy, it has an electricity carbon footprint of zero helping the UK work towards its Net Zero target.)
1.5.5.4.5. Pro: Vertical farming [requires less water](https://octopus.energy/blog/vertical-farms/)(ndependent of the surrounding climate, vertical farming is less exposed to these threats and is a more sustainable practice. It demands ~⅕ of the land required by traditional methods, 70-95% less water, 0 pesticides and 95% less fertiliser. If supplied by renewable energy, it has an electricity carbon footprint of zero helping the UK work towards its Net Zero target.) than traditional techniques, which is important given that there are likely to be [future shortages.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/19/water-shortages-could-affect-5bn-people-by-2050-un-report-warns)
1.5.5.4.5.1. Pro: As vertical farming requires [fewer](https://octopus.energy/blog/vertical-farms/)(Independent of the surrounding climate, vertical farming is less exposed to these threats and is a more sustainable practice. It demands ~⅕ of the land required by traditional methods, 70-95% less water, 0 pesticides and 95% less fertiliser. If supplied by renewable energy, it has an electricity carbon footprint of zero helping the UK work towards its Net Zero target.) pesticides and fertilisers, it is unlikely to damage existing water supplies as much as [traditional farming.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/19/water-shortages-could-affect-5bn-people-by-2050-un-report-warns)(Water quality is also deteriorating. Since the 1990s, pollution has worsened in almost every river in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and it is expected to deteriorate further in the coming two decades, mainly due to agriculture runoffs of fertiliser and other agrochemicals that load freshwater supplies with nutrients that lead to the growth of pathogens and choking algae blooms. Industry and cities are also a significant problem. About 80% of industrial and municipal wastewater is discharged without treatment.)
1.5.5.5. Pro: Climate change is likely to cause [famine](https://www.newsclick.in/global-warming-can-cause-famine-worse-1876-study-reveals) in poor countries.
1.5.5.5.1. Pro: Decreasing food supply in countries that already have food shortages will lead to wide spread starvation. Marginalised groups may become desperate leading to unrest.
1.5.5.5.2. Con: Governments often unite to come to the aid of countries being devastated by famine.
1.5.5.5.2.1. Pro: In the 1980s, Ethiopia's famine triggered an [unprecedented international response](https://odihpn.org/magazine/editors-introduction-famine-response-in-ethiopia/).
1.5.5.5.3. Pro: Food prices in poor countries are likely to rise beyond what many can afford.
1.5.5.5.3.1. Pro: Food production in poor countries is likely to [decrease](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1152745/icode/) significantly. This reduction in supply at the same time as an increase in demand will increase the price of food significantly
1.5.5.5.3.1.1. Pro: Poor countries lack the infrastructure and financial resources to quickly adapt their agricultural practices.
1.5.5.5.3.1.1.1. Pro: [Irrigation systems](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19390450802495882) - which many will come to require due to diminished and unreliable rainfall - are not affordable for some poor farmers.
1.5.5.5.3.1.2. Pro: Scientists expect climate change will make existing agricultural practices [less effective](https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/agriculture-and-climate-change).
1.5.5.6. Pro: Effects from projected anthropogenic climate change might "adversely affect agricultural production, access to safe water, and worker productivity" according to [this](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214999615012242#!) study.
1.5.6. Pro: Climate change will enhance unequal distribution of wealth.
1.5.6.1. Pro: Small [farmers in](http://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/oct/05/climate-change-smallholders-farmers-developing-world) [Uganda](http://farmingfirst.org/2017/01/lawrence-biyika-songa-the-cost-of-climate-change-for-ugandan-farmers/) see a decline of fertile land because of weather extremes; droughts, floods, salinization of their ground. This affects their income and forces them to migrate to the city and give up their primary source of income.
1.5.6.2. Pro: Climate change has already [exacerbated](https://www.pnas.org/content/116/20/9808)(Although between-country inequality has decreased over the past half century, there is ∼90% likelihood that global warming has slowed that decrease. The primary driver is the parabolic relationship between temperature and economic growth, with warming increasing growth in cool countries and decreasing growth in warm countries. Although there is uncertainty in whether historical warming has benefited some temperate, rich countries, for most poor countries there is \>90% likelihood that per capita GDP is lower today than if global warming had not occurred. Thus, our results show that, in addition to not sharing equally in the direct benefits of fossil fuel use, many poor countries have been significantly harmed by the warming arising from wealthy countries’ energy consumption.) wealth inequality globally.
1.5.6.3. Con: Under a [cost benefit analysis](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cost-benefitanalysis.asp), inequality is not necessarily bad so long as humanity is making technological advancements.
1.5.7. Pro: Fighting climate change is a moral obligation, as those who will suffer are those who are unable to prevent it.
1.5.7.1. Pro: As humans, we have the unique ability to act upon probable future events as well as a sense of right and wrong. This gives us the responsibility to protect other species of lesser intellect by acting in a way that does not cause their probable extinction.
1.5.7.1.1. Pro: In addition, the existence of many wild species is vital for the survival of the human species, or might become vital in the future for reasons that we yet do not understand.
1.5.7.2. Pro: The current most severe victims of the negative effects of climate change are [the poorer countries around the equator](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/27/climate-change-poor-countries-ipcc). Richer and more able countries are obliged to do everything to prevent further hardship for these people.
1.5.7.2.1. Con: Increasing the cost of energy by moving away from cheap energy sources will hurt the poor/3rd world, whose energy bills make up a greater share of their income.
1.5.7.2.1.1. Con: The price of fossil fuels will increase exponentially as it becomes harder and harder to come by, while renewable energy sources are [rapidly becoming cheaper](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows/) every year. Thus, making a transition to renewable energy sources will prove to be cheaper in the long run.
1.5.7.2.1.1.1. Con: If you look at fossil fuel reserves \(coal/gas/oil\) its estimated there's over 150 years left in those reserves [Fossil Fuel Reserves](https://knoema.com/infographics/smsfgud/bp-world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels), and thats just proven reserves. The same was said about Oil in the 1960's and 'Peak Oil' \(check out [Hubbert's curve](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hubbert-curve.asp)\).
1.5.7.2.1.2. Con: In areas where power grids do not exist, decentralised green energy sources provide better electrification to remote areas.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1. Con: By far the most prevalent non-grid energy source is diesel / petroleum. Unfortunately solar will not power your generator at night time. a diesel generator is a fraction of the cost of a solar panel and can be operated 24/7 regardless of wind, rain or weather or sunshine.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1.1. Con: Energy storage technologies will cover the intermittency challenge.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1.2. Con: We must use our imagination. You have a house. In that house, you place an industry. You have a child. If you buy a plastic toy to your child, automatically, you are accepting that you must drink polluted water. If you install an oil industry, you accept that you will inhale its gases. If you install solar and wind panels, the cost will be much less environmentally e.g. less noise, less pollution.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1.3. Con: Diesel is dangerous.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1.3.1. Pro: Air pollution now kills [3.3 million](http://theguardian.com) people prematurely every year.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1.3.2. Pro: [The European Environment Agency](http://theguardian.com) found that nitrogen dioxide \(NO2\) from diesel fumes had caused around 71,000 premature deaths across the continent in a single year.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1.3.3. Pro: It said [the UK](http://theguardian.com) experienced 11,940 annual premature deaths from NO2, the second highest in Europe behind Italy.
1.5.7.2.1.2.1.3.4. Pro: The World Health Organisation [declared](http://theguardian.com) diesel exhaust a carcinogenic, a cause of lung cancer in the same category as asbestos and mustard gas.
1.5.7.2.1.2.2. Pro: The EnDev project in Ghana contain a scheme to offer solar irrigation systems in rural communities that couldn't connect to the power grid \([Ruralec, p. 10](https://ruralelec.org/sites/default/files/productive_use_of_energy_final_web_0.pdf)\).
1.5.7.2.1.2.3. Pro: [Energie Douce](http://www.energiedouce.com) is a company specialized in providing solar panels to off-the-grid communities.
1.5.7.2.1.2.4. Pro: To power mills with conventional fuel a community needs tansportation routes. This makes supply uncertain.
1.5.7.2.1.3. Pro: This is why Coal and Gas and Wood are the primary fuel sources for energy creation in China, India, S/E Asia.
1.5.7.2.2. Con: -> See 1.3.6.4.3.
1.5.7.3. Con: The moral obligation to fight climate change is trumped by the right to development in developing countries.
1.5.7.3.1. Con: If the right of development is incompatible with fighting climate change, it should not be a right.
1.5.7.3.1.1. Pro: Helping developing countries to be sustainable, as well as restructuring developed countries to be sustainable, is more important than development itself.
1.5.7.3.1.2. Con: Development often lifts people out of [immense suffering](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/04/capitalism-is-having-an-identity-crisis-but-it-is-still-the-best-system)(In the past 200 years, extreme poverty has collapsed from a whopping 94% of the entire world population to less than 10% today.\n\nThis is even more remarkable when you remember the global population has ballooned from one billion to over seven billion in that time, largely due to better life expectancy. Even now, more than 60,000 people on average are escaping extreme poverty every single day.), it is illegitimate to make people suffer now to protect future people.
1.5.7.3.2. Pro: It is immoral to expect developing nations to adhere to a lesser standard of life because of the faults of developed nations.
1.5.7.3.2.1. Con: Given how environmentally destructive the lifestyle is of people in developed countries, developing countries should and must pursue a different path towards development that does not involve following blindly in the footsteps of the irresponsible nations that have led the earth to the brink of a potential catastrophe. If everyone having the same access to consumer goods is the goal of "development", there is not much of a future for mankind on this earth regardless of climate change.
1.5.7.3.2.2. Pro: It is false to assume that one emergency \(climate change\) must be taken over another \(imminent hunger and poverty\) when survival requires both.
1.5.7.3.3. Con: The resulting obligation is for developed nations to assist developing nations to develop in a sustainable manner, not to ignore the issue.
1.5.7.3.4. Con: If we assist developing nations to develop fossil fuel-based economies, we are setting them up for failure, as climate change makes this path unsustainable.
1.5.7.3.5. Pro: Developing countries [did not cause](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2)(the United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date: at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions;\n this is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national contributor; \n the 28 countries of the European Union \(EU-28\) – which are grouped together here as they typically negotiate and set targets on a collaborative basis – is also a large historical contributor at 22%;\n many of the large annual emitters today – such as India and Brazil – are not large contributors in a historical context;\n Africa’s regional contribution – relative to its population size – has been very small. This is the result of very low per capita emissions – both historically and currently.) climate change, therefore they should not suffer in attempting to alleviate it.
1.5.7.3.6. Con: Developing countries will be [severely damaged](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214999615012242#!) if projected anthropogenic climate change continues, the changes might "adversely affect agricultural production, access to safe water, and worker productivity".
1.5.8. Pro: Climate change is likely to affect human health negatively.
1.5.8.1. Pro: Climate change affects [factors](http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health) that are necessary for a healthy life by reducing air quality and the availability of clean drinking water.
1.5.8.2. Pro: A warmer climate positively contributes to the spread of infectious diseases.
1.5.8.2.1. Pro: Warmer climate allows for longer transmission seasons of important [vector-borne diseases](https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/health/climate-change-and-vector-borne-diseases/).
1.5.8.2.2. Pro: Warmer climate allows for a [wider](https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/health/climate-change-and-vector-borne-diseases/) spread of vector-borne diseases.
1.5.8.3. Pro: The WHO expects [250 000 additional deaths](http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health) per year between 2030 and 2050.
1.5.8.4. Pro: Climate change will bring about the spread of diseases like [malaria](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-is-increasing-the-risk-of-malaria-for-people-living-in-mountainous-regions-in-the-9174448.html) and [dengue](https://www.breakdengue.org/impact-of-climate-change-on-dengue/).
1.5.8.4.1. Pro: Famine and diseases associated with migration will also rise as there will be [increased migration](https://www.iom.int/migration-and-climate-change-0) due to climate change.
1.5.8.5. Con: Human [life expectancy](https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy) has been increasing over the last decades. This demonstrates that climate change has not impacted human health too negatively.
1.5.8.6. Pro: In the short term, already existing [health problems will be exacerbated](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf); in the long term, ill-health will increase in many regions \(especially in developing countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change\). \(p.69\)
1.5.8.7. Con: There is scant evidence of humans suffering to any noticeable degree due to climate change - the idea of exacerbated health problems is only present in computer models and simulations about the future.
1.5.8.7.1. Con: Already we can identify [increasing](https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change-impacts-human-health) incidence of diarrhoea, heat stress and malnutrition in relation to temperature.
1.5.8.7.2. Con: [Heat waves](https://www.indiaspend.com/india-underreports-heatwave-deaths-heres-why-this-must-change/) killed over 6,000 people in India over a period of eight years.
1.5.8.8. Con: All IPCC scenarios rely on [GDP growth hypotheses](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22884-9)(None of the 222 scenarios in the IPCC SR1.5 and none of the shared socioeconomic pathways projects a declining GDP trajectory as is examined by the expanding degrowth literature.), which are not guaranteed.
1.5.8.9. Pro: -> See 1.5.5.5.
1.5.8.10. Con: Income and wealth are the main drivers of human health, not climate.
1.5.8.10.1. Con: Income and wealth are often influenced by the climate; you cannot make as much money if your crops fail, or accumulate as much wealth if food increases in cost.
1.5.8.10.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.6.
1.5.9. Con: -> See 1.5.2.3.
1.5.10. Pro: Climate change will degrade our environment in ways that impact the emotional, aesthetic and/or spiritual condition of human beings.
1.5.11. Pro: Climate change is likely to cause political unrest and consequent violence in poor countries.
1.5.11.1. Con: Liberal use of carbon emitting sources of wealth creation could improve life in those countries by making useful products more plentiful.
1.5.11.2. Pro: The [Pentagon](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5689153-DoD-Final-Climate-Report.html) has declared climate change a threat to national security and likely a detriment to military readiness.
1.5.11.2.1. Pro: The Pentagon fears that climate change will degrade its [ability to deal with typical military problems](https://www.vox.com/2020/2/24/21145687/climate-change-usa-military-book-interview)(Climate change is a threat in their eyes because it’s going to degrade their ability to deal with conventional military problems. It’s going to create chaos, violence, mass migrations, pandemics, and state collapse around the world, particularly in vulnerable areas like Africa and the Middle East.) because it will create violence, mass migration, pandemics, state collapse, and widespread chaos, particularly in places like Africa and the Middle East.
1.5.11.2.2. Pro: Many [military bases are vulnerable](https://www.vox.com/2019/1/18/18188153/pentagon-climate-change-military-trump-inhofe)(The table below shows that of the 79 military complexes that were included in the study, most are or will within 20 years be vulnerable to recurrent flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires, and thawing permafrost.) to rising sea levels, flooding, drought, desertification, and wildfires. As such, climate change represents a strategic and logistical military threat.
1.5.11.3. Pro: Coastal regions may become less habitable under changing climatic conditions.
1.5.11.3.1. Pro: People will become displaced as [rising waters](http://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/Impact-of-Ecosystem-Destruction) destroy previously habitable land.
1.5.11.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.7.2.
1.5.11.3.3. Con: Climate Change does not directly cause places to become less habitable. It completely depends on the location and change in temperature/rainfall/weather.
1.5.11.3.4. Pro: Climate change is likely to exacerbate weather-related damage to private property, infrastructure, and clean water supplies.
1.5.11.3.4.1. Pro: Climate change is likely to cause increased flooding during storms.
1.5.11.4. Pro: The [costs](https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/gaef3516.doc.htm) of climate change are borne disproportionately by poorer countries.
1.5.11.5. Pro: Pressure on food security will lead to social and political unrest, as well as mass migration.
1.5.11.5.1. Pro: Increasing global food prices caused by climate change were an important factor in the Arab Spring, and the Syrian Civil War.
1.5.11.5.1.1. Pro: "A proximate factor behind the unrest \[triggering the Arab Spring\] was a spike in global food prices, which in turn was due in part to the extreme global weather in [2010–2011.](https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ClimateChangeArabSpring.pdf)"
1.5.11.5.1.2. Pro: [Water shortages](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/) in the Fertile Crescent in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey killed livestock, drove up food prices, sickened children, and forced 1.5 million rural residents to the outskirts of Syria's jam-packed cities, just as that country was exploding with immigrants from the Iraq war.
1.5.11.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.5.5.
1.5.11.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.5.4.3.
1.6. Con: Humans lack the tools necessary to fight climate change.
1.6.1. Con: The fight against climate change is already happening through [various sustainable development initiatives](http://www.lejournalinternational.info/en/top-10-initiatives-durables-autour-monde/).
1.6.1.1. Pro: [This article on the official energy use spaghetti chart](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/13/15268604/american-energy-one-diagram) and comparison with charts from previous years show a current strong trend of increasing use of solar and wind for electricity generation.
1.6.1.2. Pro: In many areas renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuel energy, and this trend is predicted to continue.
1.6.1.2.1. Pro: New renewables could be [cheaper](https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/30/new-renewables-cheaper-than-old-coal-in-southeast-asia/) than old coal in South East Asia.
1.6.1.2.2. Pro: In the UK, renewable energy is [cheaper](https://bulb.co.uk/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw4qvlBRDiARIsAHme6ourfeoLKAXbWaMQfjj2aSGqBLz1ZdXT6vznRGIBOVp8R6yIe2PLtZQaAiAjEALw_wcB) than the Big 6, who are the suppliers used by [95%](https://www.simplyswitch.com/energy/guides/the-big-six-energy-suppliers/) of households.
1.6.1.2.3. Pro: An IRENA report [predicts that by 2020](https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/12/renewable-energy-for-small-businesses.html) “all the renewable power generation technologies that are now in commercial use are expected to fall within the fossil fuel-fired cost range”.
1.6.1.2.4. Pro: The World Economic Forum estimates that renewable energy like solar and wind are now the [same price or even cheaper than fossil fuels](https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/12/renewable-energy-for-small-businesses.html) in 30 countries around the world.
1.6.1.2.5. Pro: With two thirds of renewable energy expected to achieve grid parity with fossil fuels in the near future, addressing energy shortages will no longer be mutually exclusive with addressing climate change.
1.6.1.2.5.1. Con: Renewables will need to be substantially cheaper than fossil fuels before they will become competitive. At the moment they are not, and are not projected to be for some time.
1.6.1.2.5.1.1. Con: -> See 1.6.1.2.1.
1.6.1.2.5.1.2. Con: The current cost of coal doesn't reflect its presumed cumulative cost, in terms of destructive effects downstream. This is referred to as the Social Cost of Carbon. When these costs are considered, coal is revealed to be very expensive.
1.6.1.2.5.1.2.1. Con: Wind and solar also do not reflect their cumulative cost, when taking into account the environmental impact of their [waste.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#40f547a4121c)
1.6.1.2.5.1.2.2. Pro: PAGE09 \(2011\) estimates [$400 Trillion](http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2011-39/file) \(avg\) net impact from human emissions, under the IPCC AR4 A1b emissions scenario. You could buy a lot of solar power capacity with that money.
1.6.1.2.5.1.2.2.1. Pro: That study didn't anticipate some recent science. For example, the authors now estimate that collapsing Arctic permafrost would add [$60 Trillion](https://www.nature.com/articles/499401a)
1.6.1.2.5.1.2.3. Pro: There are non-economic costs, too. In Asia alone, climate change puts [800M people at risk](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28723).
1.6.1.2.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.6.1.2.1.
1.6.1.2.5.3. Pro: [Renewables will surpass fossil fuel in the 2020s](https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/environment/2018/09/18/report-renewables-to-surpass-fossil-fuels-by-the-2020s). "The cost of solar photovoltaic, wind, and battery storage is falling fast and they are now able to compete with fossil fuels without subsidies"
1.6.1.2.5.4. Pro: Grid parity happens when renewables become equal or cheaper in price than fossil fuels and is beginning to happen. [Solar that is cheaper than wind](https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/environment/2018/09/18/report-renewables-to-surpass-fossil-fuels-by-the-2020s)\(Bloomberg, \(£\)\)
1.6.1.3. Pro: There are already signs that the human fight against climate change has achieved some success.
1.6.1.3.1. Pro: The ozone hole is [recovering](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban).
1.6.1.3.2. Pro: The forests are [expanding](http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37845#.WmXl4nMo_qB) in developed countries.
1.6.1.4. Pro: At a UN summit in 2015, 193 member states adopted [17 sustainable development goals](https://www.sompo-hd.com/en/csr/sdgs/).
1.6.1.4.1. Pro: The [EU is committed](https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/international-strategies/sustainable-development-goals/eu-approach-sustainable-development_en) to meeting these goals.
1.6.1.5. Con: It may takes years to identify whether these sustainable development initiatives have been effective.
1.6.1.6. Pro: The 196 member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change \(UNFCCC\) have signed the [Paris Accord](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs), an agreement to keep the global temperature increase small through adopting ambitious national initiatives.
1.6.2. Con: We have the tools and technologies. It is the political will that is lacking.
1.6.2.1. Con: -> See 1.4.5.2.
1.6.2.2. Pro: All political systems as currently set up are motivated to prevent any significant action. Simply put, those in power \(corporations, industry\) do strongly benefit from the status quo and fighting climate change directly decreases their profits. This is the main reason, why we are still where we are.
1.6.2.3. Pro: It is technically feasible that the world's energy production could be completely powered by renewable energy sources.
1.6.2.3.1. Pro: [Geothermal energy](https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2010/09/geothermal-energy-is-the-solution-for-the-future.html), CO2-free and safe, could cover the world's energy needs if the technology is developed enough and becomes cost-effective
1.6.2.3.2. Pro: Deep-sea [wind farms](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/wind-farm-world-renewable-energy-green-deep-sea-india-electricity-power-north-atlantic-a7991326.html) could produce power with a form of clean and renewable energy.
1.6.2.3.2.1. Con: Technically feasible ignores the economic viability - this project at present is economically unviable.
1.6.2.3.3. Con: While it may be technically feasible, it also needs to be financially feasible - otherwise there is no point.
1.6.2.3.3.1. Con: -> See 1.4.5.3.3.1.
1.6.2.3.3.2. Con: Water, food, shelter, energy, and waste disposal lie at the foundations of the economy. Finance is just a tool to facilitate the provision of those necessities in a complex society.
1.6.2.3.3.3. Pro: For the last four years, approximately [$300 billion per year](https://about.bnef.com/blog/runaway-53gw-solar-boom-in-china-pushed-global-clean-energy-investment-ahead-in-2017/) has been spent to reduce annual emissions, yet only [7%](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a21756137/renewables-50-percent-energy-2050/) of the world's energy comes from wind and solar sources.
1.6.2.3.3.3.1. Con: The reference says "Typical utility-scale PV systems were about 25% cheaper per megawatt last year than they were two years earlier."  Apparently, the investments are producing phenomenal results.
1.6.2.3.3.3.2. Con: Humanity spent a hundred billion dollars on reprogramming software for Y2K Readiness fearing the Y2K bug \([Pinker, p. 294](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now)\). Thus, spending in this dimensions are nothing extraordinary on a global scale.
1.6.2.3.3.3.3. Pro: It's not only this bad. If you consider how long humanity has been trying to change energy to renewables, it is at a snail pace - it would take 200 years to convert to full renewables at this rate.
1.6.2.3.3.3.3.1. Con: Many technological innovations do not proceed at a linear pace. The attempt to develop flying machines was a complete failure for hundreds of of years. Then suddenly it was a complete success.
1.6.2.3.3.3.4. Pro: One cannot even replace all energy production with wind/solar. There is not enough sun shining and wind blowing to do this at suitable sites around the globe.
1.6.2.3.3.3.4.1. Pro: Hydroelectric technology has some negative impacts on the environment.
1.6.2.3.3.3.4.1.1. Pro: [Hydroelectric power](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/) produces very large amounts of greenhouse gases when land is dammed and vegetation rots.  The [worst](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC.2C_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources) hydro plants produce more than twice as much greenhouses gases as the worst coal plants.
1.6.2.3.3.3.4.1.1.1. Con: While this is ultimately unavoidable in areas where reservoirs are created anew and thus much vegetation is flooded, it is controllable in magnitude and finite in duration: reservoirs do not grow and grow, and decaying vegetation cannot release greenhouse gases forever.
1.6.2.3.3.3.4.1.2. Pro: The construction of dams has an enormous impact in the coast of a country, with the lack of sand reaching the sea causing a massive raise in the levels of [marine abrasion](http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/arch374/winter2001/dbiggs/enviro.html).
1.6.2.3.3.3.4.2. Con: Current global energy demand is ~14 TW. Conceivably, this could [triple to 45 TW](http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf)(p. 2) by 2100. It would take about [1/2 of 1% of the mid-latitude land area,](https://old-www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf)(This theoretical potential could be used to generate 15 TW of C-neutral power from 10%-efficient solar-conversion systems covering only 0.17% of the earth’s surface area,69 or \n\n\(5\) A 15TW \n= 0.168% · \(4πr2\) \n= 0.168% · 4π · \(6,378 km\)2\n= 858,792 km2. \n\nThis area is roughly the land area of Namibia \(825,418 km2\) or Venezuela \(882,050 km2\)\n\n\(section 12, equation 5\)) covered with 10%-efficient solar-electric panels, to produce 45 TW.
1.6.2.3.4. Pro: We need to capture and use one 10,000th part of the total incoming solar radiation to satisfy our present energy needs. [www.energy.gov](https://www.energy.gov/articles/top-6-things-you-didnt-know-about-solar-energy) This can be visualised as an area the size of Britain occupying the Sahara desert - a tiny proportion of that desert.
1.6.2.3.5. Pro: We must make a more rapid transition from dependence on fossil energy to use of conservation, renewable energy and possibly nuclear power.
1.6.2.3.5.1. Con: Nuclear power is a relatively low carbon technology, but remains contentious due to its dangers and cost.
1.6.2.3.5.1.1. Pro: "Highly radioactive: 1,000 gallons of nuclear waste leak in Washington every year": "...Department of Energy investigators this week discovered three additional tanks were leaking, bringing the total estimated annual waste to 1,000 gallons per year. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation... was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project, ...still remain from Cold War-era plutonium production, are highly dangerous and are quickly dripping into American soil." [rt.com](https://www.rt.com/usa/washington-radiation-leak-nuclear-635/)
1.6.2.3.5.1.2. Pro: New nuclear power plants are expensive. The British state guarantees the supplier at Hinkley Point C [£92.50/MWh](https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hinkley-Point-C.pdf), This is about twice the current [spot price of electricity](https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/Market-data1/GB/Auction-prices/UK/Hourly/?view=table).
1.6.2.3.5.2. Con: Nuclear power is not environmentally clean: [nuclear waste](https://sciencing.com/two-environmental-problems-nuclear-power-generating-electricity-19948.html) is of great concern.
1.6.2.3.5.3. Con: [Nuclear accidents](https://sciencing.com/two-environmental-problems-nuclear-power-generating-electricity-19948.html) are of great concern. They can negatively influence many generations of humans in the far future.
1.6.2.3.5.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.2.5.8.
1.6.2.3.6. Con: Simply dreaming up technological solutions without looking at their actual political and economic ramifications is not realistic
1.6.2.3.7. Con: -> See 1.4.2.5.8.
1.6.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.5.
1.6.3. Con: While we may not have tools to fight against climate change, through ceasing to use technology which makes climate change worse we would also fight climate change.
1.6.3.1. Pro: [Zero waste strategies](http://mrecycle.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-divert-waste-from-landfills.html) are a method to fight human-induced climate change which seeks to reinvent how industries and human behave: Reduce, reuse and recycle. This would slow down our influence on climate change, and without it climate change will be a larger threat in the future
1.6.4. Con: A range of "geo-engineering" technologies to limit global warming have been proposed.
1.6.4.1. Con: -> See 1.4.5.2.
1.6.4.2. Pro: There is a suggestion that carbon dioxide could be [stored in the ocean](https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Storage).
1.6.4.3. Con: Attempts to side-step a deep-effort solution by[geoengineering the atmosphere to increase reflectivity and reduce solar gain](https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/scientists-say-controversial-plan-cool-planet-doable-ncna941636) \(i.e. hacking the atmosphere to reduce heating\) will just produce an [equivalent reduction in agricultural productivity](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3).
1.6.4.4. Pro: [Geoengineering](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604081/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/) [shows promise](https://www.wired.com/story/why-climate-change-skeptics-are-backing-geoengineering/) in moderating the greenhouse effect, and is completely untried. That means we still have an ace in the hole.
1.6.4.4.1. Con: [A recent study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3) suggests that the widely-considered notion of geoengineering with sulphate aerosols is a dead end, as far as agricultural productivity is concerned.
1.6.4.4.2. Con: Geoengineering presents a "moral hazard": by ameliorating the immediate perception of threat from rising greenhouse gasses, geoengineering would remove the incentive to stop emitting additional gasses.
1.6.4.4.2.1. Con: The hazard only applies if geoengineering works – maybe it doesn’t! Picture bumbling our way to 500 ppm - reaching for geoengineering to save - us only to find we don’t how to use it or that it doesn’t work at all. We need to test it if it is our backstop. If it doesn’t work this research will incent us to really get emissions down because there is no backstop.
1.6.5. Con: -> See 1.4.5.
1.6.6. Con: -> See 1.5.2.4.3.
1.6.7. Pro: The way human society is organized makes it hard to tackle a planetary problem spanning over generations.
1.6.7.1. Pro: Tackling climate change requires quick, and strong action now, as we need deep behavioural, organisational change, and public acceptance.
1.6.7.1.1. Con: Countries can become independent of oil and gas prices and make their own energy.
1.6.7.1.1.1. Con: Wind and Solar only make up a tiny percent of the world's energy mix, approximately [4.3%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption). This percentage is only shifting by approximately 5% every decade. \([see page 31 figure 1](http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/17-8652_GSR2018_FullReport_web_-1.pdf)\)
1.6.7.1.1.1.1. Con: ["From the end of 2004, worldwide renewable energy capacity grew at rates of 10–60% annually for many technologies."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy)
1.6.7.1.1.1.2. Con: No matter how small the renewable energy is right now, the point is to push to use more of them and less of CO2 emitter type.
1.6.7.1.1.1.3. Pro: Since the climate debate is centered around where we will be in 100 years, its important to put into context the reality of how quickly humanity can change various industries and commercial entities. This is why pointing out the miniscule change in green renewables as a % of mix of total energy consumption is important; tackling climate change may just not happen, and adaptation may be a better strategy.
1.6.7.1.1.2. Pro: Renewable energy like [wind and solar is becoming cheaper](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/04/30/solar-and-wind-costs-continue-to-fall-as-power-becomes-cleaner/#71f46e63785f) per KW.
1.6.7.1.1.2.1. Con: However, they have some environmental costs.
1.6.7.1.1.2.1.1. Con: Simple measures such as painting turbine blades with red bands, and playing recorded sounds of alarm calls from starlings when birds approach can reduce turbine blade kills.
1.6.7.1.1.2.1.2. Pro: They are not animal-friendly.
1.6.7.1.1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Wind turbines generate some noise which can distrurb natural wildlife.
1.6.7.1.1.2.1.2.2. Pro: Sovacool estimated that in the United States wind turbines kill between [20,000 and 573,000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power) birds per year.
1.6.7.1.1.2.2. Con: Imperial College [found](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10971762/Wind-turbine-fires-ten-times-more-common-than-thought-experts-warn.html) that wind turbines are "prone to "catastrophic" fires but the true scale of the problem is unknown".
1.6.7.1.2. Con: Successfully changing people's behavior, and generating public acceptance for drastic changes, is part of tackling climate change. That this is required is not an argument against the need to tackle climate change.
1.6.7.1.3. Con: Behavioural change and public acceptance is not necessary for large energy companies to switch production from coal to solar/wind/hydro/nuclear.
1.6.7.1.3.1. Con: While it is not necessary many businesses make decisions based on public opinion. Without public acceptance and pressure it is [unlikely](https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-public-opinion-climate-change-matters-business) businesses who rely on fossil fuels would switch production.
1.6.7.1.3.2. Con: U.S. households are [responsible](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-social-science-help-combat-climate-change/) for 626 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, nearly 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 8 percent of global emissions. Behavioural changes could reduce the amount of energy needed in the first place and help in a more immediate way than changing all energy sources.
1.6.7.1.3.2.1. Con: [EPA data](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) indicates that US households and businesses, combined, are responsible for more like 11% of US GHG emissions. If that's correct, a much bigger effect could be had by making structural changes at the national level, e.g. programs to transform energy production, transportation, etc.
1.6.7.2. Con: Trying to tackle a planetary problem, while difficult, is still better than not doing anything at all and dooming future generations.
1.6.7.3. Con: Multigenerational action is possible. Many large scale religious and cultural projects such as [cathedrals](https://www.dw.com/en/5-buildings-you-probably-didnt-know-took-more-than-500-years-to-build/a-19402414) took generations to build.
1.6.7.4. Con: That a problem is 'difficult' does not mean that it should be ignored entirely.
1.6.7.5. Con: Humans are capable of changing the way our society is organised. With focus on long term effects, sacrificing short term gains this might be possible.
1.6.7.6. Pro: The economic model doesn't allow for transformative change.
1.6.7.6.1. Con: Economic models can and should change if they don't allow for needed transformative change.
1.6.7.7. Pro: Societies depend on charismatic leaders rather than long-term thinkers.
1.6.7.7.1. Con: As the sociologist [Max Weber](https://academic.udayton.edu/RichardGhere/POL%20307/weber.htm) argues, one of the distinguishing features of modern society is that it has replaced traditional reliance on charisma and other forms of authority with reliance on bureaucracy and technocratic management. This allows for longer term projects.
1.6.7.7.2. Pro: There has been a [surge](https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2019/mar/06/revealed-the-rise-and-rise-of-populist-rhetoric) in populist rhetoric in the past twenty years.
1.6.7.7.2.1. Pro: Trump's [anti-China populist rhetoric](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/world/asia/trump-trade-war-china.html)(Over a week ago, Mr. Trump called China’s president, Xi Jinping, an “enemy” and threatened to use his emergency powers to force American companies out of China. He increased existing and future tariffs and his aides said the president’s only regret was not raising them even higher.) led to an increase in [trade barriers.](https://www.savills.com/impacts/market-trends/the-economic-impact-of-populism.html)(Trade barriers can lead to the suboptimal use of resources under the show of protecting national security interests, when those same resources could have been used in more productive capacities.)
1.6.7.7.2.2. Pro: In Europe, populist policy is often [nativist](https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/03/there-populist-foreign-policy/populist-ideology-and-foreign-policy-europe)(The most established populist family in Europe is the populist radical right, rooted in Western and Northern Europe and often with origins in post-fascist parties. The Rassemblement National \(RN, formerly the Front National\) of Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen is the typical exponent of this party family, which also includes the Freedom Party \(FPÖ\) in Austria, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the Freedom Party \(PVV\) in the Netherlands, the Lega in Italy, and more recently the Alternative for Germany \(AfD\). The populist radical right is characterized by nativism, with the people defined in ethnic or cultural terms as the virtuous natives threatened by immigration and its elite enablers.), meaning that it is highly anti-immigration.
1.6.7.8. Pro: The global community is fragmented preventing comprehensive change.
1.6.7.8.1. Pro: Recent [disputes](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/6/16/ethiopia-rejects-arab-league-resolution-on-renaissance-dam) over the Ethiopian dam demonstrate how many nations see energy and water use as [zero sum](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp).
1.6.7.8.2. Pro: [Greenwashing](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts) [scandals](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772) are common as companies put profit in a capitalist system over ethical behaviour.
1.6.8. Pro: -> See 1.4.2.5.
1.7. Con: The money necessary to fight climate change can be used to better ends.
1.7.1. Con: In many cases, the values that sustainable development and climate change adaptability prioritise are in broad alignment with efforts to improve quality of life.
1.7.1.1. Pro: Air pollution is a major [cause](https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/) of death and illness around the globe.
1.7.1.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.7.2.1.2.1.3.1.
1.7.1.2. Pro: Money used to fight climate change is also money used to [improve](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27769-fighting-climate-change-is-opportunity-to-improve-public-health/) health and wellness \(both mental and physical\), happiness, and even economic health.
1.7.2. Con: The [insurance industry](http://www.iaisweb.org) forecasts significant losses due to climate change. Therefore, money that is spent on "better ends" instead of fighting climate change must be balanced against these losses.
1.7.2.1. Con: The industry doesn't take it seriously. The insurance industry has over [15 trillion](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2018/05/31/insurers-in-the-front-line-of-the-fight-against-climate-change-shoot-themselves-in-the-foot/#7ec0672840fa) invested in the market, and their assets are not in low carbon investments.
1.7.2.1.1. Con: This may simply indicate that portfolio managers are not completely rational in their decisions.
1.7.2.1.1.1. Con: Pure conjecture, and not supportable. Portfolio managers are highly analytical and driven by facts and numbers. If they ignore "the sky is falling" mantra around climate change, then the sky probably isn't really falling.
1.7.2.1.2. Con: Growing numbers of insurance firms are [divesting from fossil fuels.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/growing-number-of-global-insurance-firms-divesting-from-fossil-fuels)
1.7.3. Con: Money can be saved by fighting climate change \(e.g. by reducing energy usage or consumption\).
1.7.3.1. Pro: There are very [sound economic studies](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9) on this issue. This includes Yale university's recent work showing that well over 90% of World GDP would suffer, while selected countries would benefit from higher GHG concentrations. Net for all the planet, it is clear that climate action is imperative.
1.7.3.1.1. Pro: The developed nations who have recklessly brought us to this juncture have a moral obligation to help other countries develop in a way that is sustainable, not environmentally destructive. This means leading by example and moving away from the individualist consumer culture that is the root of the problem.
1.7.3.2. Pro: The recycling industry, whilst continuing to promote sustainability, is also projected to [add about 850 billion USD to the global GDP](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/22/what-would-happen-if-everyone-recycled/374773001/) by 2025.
1.7.3.3. Pro: Shifting to a Circular Economy - one that restores and regenerates by design - offers trillions of dollars of savings. "WEF: [An economic opportunity worth billions](http://reports.weforum.org/toward-the-circular-economy-accelerating-the-scale-up-across-global-supply-chains/an-economic-opportunity-worth-billions-charting-the-new-territory/?doing_wp_cron=1594708181.0542631149291992187500)"
1.7.4. Pro: The [Copenhagen Consensus Centre](https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus) has produced a global ranking of the projects that can do the most good for the least amount of money. There are many projects with much higher bang for buck than climate change.
1.7.4.1. Pro: Following [the Copenhagen Consensus Centre's plan](https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus/populationanddemography) would achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health \(SRH\) services by 2030, and eliminate unmet need for modern contraception by 2040 which will return $120 for every dollar spent.
1.7.4.2. Con: The Copenhagen consensus puts planet protection in one of its three main recommendations categories.
1.7.4.3. Con: The Copenhagen Consensus Centre plan has Climate Change as a key development areas as well as related key efforts in Energy, Biodiversity, and Air Pollution areas. That these are all collectively on this plan emphasize the importance and impact they have to combat climate change.
1.7.5. Con: It will be cheaper to [act now](https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/home/fresh-insight/gps-energy-darwinism.html) than to wait.
1.7.5.1. Pro: Many countries already made target to going 0 GHG emission in a near future and are able to keep on pace to date without hurting their economy [\(Germany as an example\)](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets). Dealing with consequences will likely be a lot more expensive in money and lives \(human and nature\) while making the changes might even be beneficial for the economy
1.7.5.1.1. Con: Germany fell [significantly](http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/13/germany-is-a-coal-burning-gas-guzzling-climate-change-hypocrite/) behind its desired targets.
1.7.5.1.2. Con: Much of Germany's '[Energiewende](https://qz.com/1519750/germanys-solar-wind-nuclear-and-coal-energy-efforts/)' is focused on eliminating the climate neutral nuclear power and replacing it with coal and gas power plants.
1.7.6. Pro: There are far more pressing issues to sort out for humanity at present.
1.7.6.1. Con: The phenomenon of climate change and its effects are far more politically divisive than any attempts to fight climate change are likely to be.
1.7.6.1.1. Con: Fighting climate change could itself increase pressure on political governance if some countries feel that others are freeloading.
1.7.6.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.11.
1.7.6.1.3. Pro: As a result of climate change, national and international migration could rise. This could overwhelm immigration systems and encourage conflict.
1.7.6.1.3.1. Con: Issues with migration are at times caused by conflict and poor governance. Climate change is not the only factor in this issue.
1.7.6.1.3.1.1. Con: Climate change is one of the drivers for [migratin](https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-07-15/climate-change-contributing-migration-central-american-refugees)from Central America[.](https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-07-15/climate-change-contributing-migration-central-american-refugees)
1.7.6.1.3.1.2. Con: [World Bank report estimates that 140 million](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/03/19/climate-change-could-force-over-140-million-to-migrate-within-countries-by-2050-world-bank-report) could be forced to migrate by climate change by 2050
1.7.6.1.3.1.3. Pro: Politics and poverty caused past conflicts and migration issues in East Africa, [not climate change](https://theconversation.com/politics-and-poverty-caused-past-conflicts-in-east-africa-not-climate-change-96372).
1.7.6.1.3.2. Pro: Climate change is likely to increase migratory fluxes from poorer countries, often more exposed to the impacts of climate change and less capable of dealing with it, like the [Time](http://time.com/4024210/climate-change-migrants/) shows might already be happening between Africa and Europe.
1.7.6.1.3.2.1. Pro: For this reason, organisations like the [Climate and Migration Coalition](http://climatemigration.org.uk) are already working to improve migration policies as a way to better adapt to climate change.
1.7.6.1.3.3. Pro: [A severe drought](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/) that was at least exacerbated by climate change pushed Syrian farmers into the cities prior to the Syrian Civil War, meaning the war was somewhat indirectly triggered by climate change.
1.7.6.1.3.3.1. Con: A severe drought possibly exacerbated by a change in climate doesn't equate to a refugee crisis caused by climate change. The refugee crisis in Syria is primarily caused by politics and war.
1.7.6.1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Migratory movements often happen due to Civil War and other forms of political instability, such as in South Sudan or Syria.
1.7.6.1.3.3.1.1.1. Pro: The Syrian civil war mainly resulted out of power competition between different domestic and foreign groups.
1.7.6.1.3.3.1.1.2. Pro: The Syrian conflict came in the wake of the Arab Spring.
1.7.6.1.3.3.1.1.3. Pro: The Arab spring was triggered by a [Mohamed Bouazizi's self immolation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi) rather than climate change.
1.7.6.1.3.3.2. Con: An expert in modern statistics has written extensively about how [absurd](https://wmbriggs.com/post/23581/) it is to link climate change to refugee influxes.
1.7.6.1.3.3.3. Con: The relationship between drought, migration and conflict in the example of the Syrian farmers is [not so](https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/publication/cf330065-4901-4a41-b97c-9c2b9664b467) [clear-cut](https://phys.org/news/2017-07-syria-climate-war-links-drought.html).
1.7.6.1.3.3.3.1. Pro: Other [factors](https://phys.org/news/2017-07-syria-climate-war-links-drought.html) were in play during the Syrian migration. The Kurdistan region of Iraq was affected by the same dry period as Syria but did not have any mass migration flows.
1.7.6.1.3.3.3.2. Pro: The government had [cancelled](https://phys.org/news/2017-07-syria-climate-war-links-drought.html) subsidies for fuel used to power irrigation pumps and to take produce to market – and it had dismantled a micro-finance network that had served as an income security net.
1.7.6.1.3.3.3.3. Pro: [A national drought strategy](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00263206.2013.850076?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=fmes20) that had been approved in 2006 was not implemented once the rains dried up.
1.7.6.1.3.4. Con: Causes of migration are interdependent and cannot be easily linked to climate change alone.
1.7.6.1.3.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.7.6.1.3.3.1.1.
1.7.6.1.3.4.2. Con: -> See 1.5.11.5.1.
1.7.6.1.3.5. Pro: A severe drought possibly exacerbated by climate change can possibly end up in a migration process, as people are forced to leave their homes because they are facing threat of death.
1.7.6.1.3.6. Pro: [The Pentagon](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/pentagon-global-warming-will-change-how-us-military-trains-and-goes-to-war) has already incorporated climate change into their war games since they believe it will worsen old conflicts and possibly provoke new ones.
1.7.6.1.3.6.1. Con: [Trump](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/22/pentagon-trump-impulsive-decrees-defense-701532) is changing the Pentagon's policy.
1.7.6.1.3.6.1.1. Con: The Pentagon is [still concerned about CC](https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/09/12/pentagon-is-still-preparing-for-global-warming-even-though-trump-said-to-stop/), in spite of Trump.
1.7.6.1.3.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.11.2.
1.7.6.1.3.7. Pro: According to the [New York declaration](https://www.unhcr.org/protection/environment/5a12f9577/climate-change-disaster-displacement-global-compacts-unhcrs-perspectives.html), "some people who are displaced in the context of climate change and disasters may fall within the refugee definition". The international community is trying to address the issue. \(p. 1\)
1.7.6.1.3.8. Pro: -> See 1.5.11.
1.7.6.1.3.9. Pro: There is migratory pressure because the amount of habitable land is being reduced.
1.7.6.1.3.9.1. Con: Habitable or producible land is reduced primarily through mismanagement, and it can be reclaimed through proper management. [50 Years Ago: The Reclamation of a Man-Made Desert](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reclamation-of-man-made-desert/)
1.7.6.1.3.9.2. Pro: Extreme weather is [shrinking the area of the planet](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/26/how-extreme-weather-is-shrinking-the-planet) available for humans to live in.
1.7.6.1.3.9.3. Pro: -> See 1.5.11.3.
1.7.6.1.3.9.4. Pro: Without migration, ["each degree of temperature rise above the current baseline roughly corresponds to one billion humans left outside the temperature niche"](https://www.pnas.org/content/117/21/11350)
1.7.6.1.3.9.5. Pro: If humans fail to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, significant areas of the earth may be rendered [uninhabitable](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html) by humans.
1.7.6.1.3.9.6. Pro: -> See 1.3.6.
1.7.6.2. Con: -> See 1.3.
1.7.6.3. Con: With the exception of meteor strikes, tsunamis and volcanoes, all the other problems listed above will come about if we continue to increase Earth's greenhouse effect.
1.7.6.4. Pro: Infant mortality and curable diseases do untold damage to millions of people annually - right now - and should be dealt with.
1.7.6.4.1. Con: -> See 1.5.8.4.
1.7.6.4.2. Pro: [Money](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncpneuro0629) can be invaluable in finding a cure for diseases.
1.7.6.4.2.1. Con: Climate change is one of the factors in disease. [CDC - Climate Effects on Health](https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects/default.htm). For this reason we should be funding research on cures and funding efforts to reverse climate change.
1.7.6.5. Pro: More than 30 per cent of children in developing countries live on less than [US $1](https://www.unicef.org/mdg/poverty.html) a day. [Poverty](https://borgenproject.org/how-to-solve-global-poverty/) is an urgent problem which needs to be addressed.
1.7.6.5.1. Con: Global relative poverty and climate change are not independent. [Global poverty is significantly affected by global warming](https://reliefweb.int/report/world/top-9-causes-global-poverty). The main root cause of global warming is resource exploitation, primarily through aggressive extraction, consumption, and colonialism, spurred by near-unrestricted capitalism. This then leads to [increasing wealth inequality](https://evonomics.com/how-capitalism-actually-generates-more-inequality/) \(one of the central claims in Marx's work\) which leads to higher levels of relative poverty.
1.7.6.6. Pro: There are many other environmental problems than climate change \(habitat destruction, chemical pollution in water/air/soil, plastic waste in the ocean, light pollution at night etc.\). Maybe, some of these problems are even more dangerous for the nature and for the civilization than climate change.
1.7.6.6.1. Pro: [Light pollution](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320719307797) is suggested to be important yet overlooked driver of insect decline. Contrary to climate change, it has no parallels in the history of the planet.
1.7.6.6.2. Pro: [Sánchez-Bayo & Wyckhuys](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636) concluded that climate change could cause extinction of some species, but habitat loss, pollution and biological factors are generally more important factors of species declines.
1.7.6.7. Con: While there may be more pressing threats to humanity, climate change is one of the few that we can do anything about.
1.7.6.7.1. Con: Meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis are within human control.
1.7.6.7.1.1. Pro: Meteorites can be deflected.
1.7.6.7.1.1.1. Pro: [Gravity tractors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGuMPj5bajA&t=7s&list=PL_qffRVV3oS1hjplHZvsF08bFI0tMftOD&index=6) influence the path of the meteorite.
1.7.6.7.1.1.2. Pro: [Laser ablation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGuMPj5bajA&t=7s&list=PL_qffRVV3oS1hjplHZvsF08bFI0tMftOD&index=6) can alter the direction of a meteorite.
1.7.6.7.1.1.3. Pro: [Kinetic impactors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGuMPj5bajA&t=7s&list=PL_qffRVV3oS1hjplHZvsF08bFI0tMftOD&index=6), such as a rocket, can destroy or alter the path of a meteorite on collision course.
1.7.6.7.1.2. Pro: [Tsunami warning systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami_warning_system) are in place around the world.
1.7.6.7.1.3. Pro: Meteor strikes can be prevented by destroying the meteorite.
1.7.6.7.1.4. Pro: Volcanic eruptions and tsunamis can be prepared for.
1.7.6.8. Con: There is no reason that dealing with issues such as war, famine, poverty, inequality and nuclear threat is mutually exclusive with addressing climate change.
1.7.6.8.1. Con: Political will and effort globally is consumed by climate change - this take the focus away from these other issues.
1.7.6.8.1.1. Pro: There is an opportunity cost for considering one bill over another.
1.7.6.8.1.2. Con: Fighting climate change could unify humanity.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1. Pro: [Polls](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/) show that people do not realise how united scientists are about the science of climate change. Such overwhelming unity among scientists can form the basis for broader communal unity.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1. Pro: 15,000 scientists just co-signed an [article](https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229) calling for an extreme and aggressive effort to slow down or reverse the trend of climate change before it's too late. It is the second warning of this scale, the other was 25 years ago.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.1. Con: There are approximately 7 million scientists globally. So arguing from a suggested consensus or majority and producing a number of 15,000 seems alarming on the surface but when one looks at the facts, it is almost meaningless.[UNESCO count of scientists globally](https://en.unesco.org/unesco_science_report/figures)
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.1.1. Con: The number of scientists who sign a document does not prove or disprove the science of climate change. The truth of a statement is not dependent upon the number of people who claim that statement to be true. Truth depends upon evidence that particular claim is true.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.1.2. Con: The authors of the article believe that 15K represents the most co-authors of any article in history.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.2. Con: -> See 1.1.8.1.5.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.3. Con: Science has always known that certain technologies have harmful side effects. The actual problem is the economic and societal systems set up to reward short-term thinking, which requires a more psychological and political solution. This has relatively little to do with climate science and thus climate scientists are not qualified to comment on how possible, or difficult, such a solution might be.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.3.1. Con: The scientists made no claims about the difficulty or possibility of the economic/social solution.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.3.2. Con: Short term thinking is a generic problem in the political sphere, and refusal to do anything about man-made climate change is one specific example of short term thinking.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.4. Pro: While 15,000 scientists co-signing an article may seem a small number in relation to a possible 7 million total scientists on the planet, it is wrong to deduce that the remainder do not agree with the position. Co-signing is a serious and coordinated act, by people with knowledge in the area.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.1.2.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5. Pro: The position taken in the article co-signed by 15,000 scientist is validated by the lack of an equally-supported article in opposition.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.1. Con: Getting a large group of people to co-sign a claim is not the only way for a group of people to express skeptisism. The lack of a similar action by climate skeptics does not imply that there are fewer scientists who believe it, only that climate change believers are more vocal.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.2. Con: 31487 American scientists \(skeptics\) signed a similar petition [www.petitionproject.org](http://www.petitionproject.org)
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.2.1. Con: The Oregon petition has been [debunked](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/243092) - for instance, most of the signatories were not climate scientists.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.2.2. Con: The Oregon petition contains the names of [fictitious characters](https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2006/02/14/700-club-anchor-touted-global-warming-skeptics/134878) as signatories.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.2.3. Con: It is not possible to verify the credentials of the Oregon petition signatories because place of employment is [not provided](https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2006/02/14/700-club-anchor-touted-global-warming-skeptics/134878).
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.2.4. Con: The Oregon petition is over [two decades old](http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/). Scientific consensus has changed a lot in that time. The following quote is over a decade old: "When the magazine Scientific American reached out to a random sample of 30 names on the list in 2006, it found "six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer."".
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3. Pro: Science is furthered by debate, but in this case there is none. If a similar number of scientists have different data, or believe that 15,000 of their peers are simply wrong, they would have joined together to co-signed an article in opposition.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1. Con: Some [notable scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) do not agree that climate change is man-made.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.1. Con: Few scientists on this WP list are climatologists.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.2.1.2.1.2.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.3. Con: Even if climate change wasn't caused by humans, this does not negate the fact that humans will be impacted by the consequences of climate change.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4. Con: The vast majority of the community of climatology scientists agree that humans caused the recent climate change.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.1. Pro: Here is [yet more evidence of the strength of scientific consensus around man-made global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) about man-made climate change. There are seven studies, using different methods, showing majorities of 91-100% agreeing that warming is influenced by humans. Also, agreement is stronger in scientists who have more publications in the field.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.2. Pro: According to [Cook et al. \(2013\)](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024), 97% of peer-reviewed climatological papers taking a position on the matter endorsed the position that humans contribute to global warming.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.2.1. Pro: Furthermore, the scientific papers coming from the dissenting ~3% are [all flawed](https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/).
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.3. Con: There is a chance that outsiders are correct.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.3.1. Con: Anything in life is possible, but the accumulation of overwhelming evidence should outweigh reasonable dissent in this area.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.3.2. Con: If by "outsiders" it is meant those that believe we can alter Earth's energy budget without suffering any adverse consequences, there is no chance that they are correct. [kialo.com](https://www.kialo.com/the-science-of-human-induced-climate-change-is-largely-settled-18139/18139.0=18139.1+18139.34)
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.3.3. Con: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.2.1.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.4. Pro: Naomi Oreskes found [no rejection of AGW in a survey of 928 papers](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full) on climate change.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.5. Pro: [Doran and Zimmerman](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009EO030002) 2009 showed that the level of agreement that human activity was significant in raising mean global temperatures rose with the level of expertise, from about 57% in the general population to 97.4% in the case of scientists who published frequently in peer-reviewed climate journals.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.6. Pro: [Anderegg et al 2010](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107) show that support for AGW is highest among climatologists with the greatest expertise
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.7. Pro: The proportion of heating caused by human activity \(as opposed to natural forcing from solar variation\) is [about 93%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-4.html)
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.7.1. Pro: That number was from 2007. Those numbers now appear to have overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols. In addition, we've dumped sigfnificant additional CO2. As a result, humans are now held to be responsible for [about 98%](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf) of the heating of the climate \(Sec 1.2.1., p44\)
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.4.8. Pro: [Bray and von Storch](https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/new-survey-of-climate-scientists-by-bray-and-von-storch-confirms-broad-consensus-on-human-causation/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) find that 87% of climatologists accept that most of the recent/near future warming is man-made. The consensus they find is on a growing trend.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.5. Con: Many on this list are questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections and "They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling." So this is no source of comfort, if the projections may be too low.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.5.1. Con: None of the listed scientists are verified to have the belief that the climate modelling underestimates warming. Spot checking most of the scientists in this list \(Lindzen, Curry, Moore, Stot, Dyson\) it is obvious the list is really scientists who believe [climate modelling by IPCC overestimates warming](https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/).
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.5.1.1. Pro: Moreover, these claims are most frequently made by scientists who, regardless of their expertise in other scientific fields, have few credentials in atmospheric, ocean, or other relevant sciences. Best recent example: William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, whose colleagues at Princeton and elsewhere with those credentials have consistently and repeatedly debunked his claims about climate.[Michael MacCracken's paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal of false climate claims](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/The-Real-Truth-About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf)
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.6. Con: Many of the scientists on this list "... have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural." This is very different to actually refuting man-made climate change.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.6. Con: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.1.1.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.7. Con: The co-authored article is including more topic areas, such as poverty or freshwater. This indicates that the number of signatories includes scientists that might not have strong beliefs in climate change but other issue areas.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.7.1. Con: If a scientist signs a document, it can be assumed that the scientist has a strong belief about the document.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8. Con: Scientists are not necessarily the ones who should say what humans should do.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1. Con: Scientists who are experts on the matter should be trusted until proven otherwise by equal experts on the matter.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.1. Con: Scientists often lack the understanding of political constraints.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.1.1. Con: Political constraints should not be taken into account when humanity's future is at stake.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.1.1.1. Con: Fighting climate change requires society wide cooperation. Cooperation on this scale is inherently political and is thus politically constrained.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.2. Con: -> See 1.1.8.1.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.3. Pro: Experts have spent most of their careers dealing with the subject. Non-experts do not have an equally deep understanding.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.4. Con: Experts do socialize in similar circles. This can blur their perceptions of each other.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.4.1. Con: Independent scientific experiments should ultimately clarify any such blurred perceptions.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.4.2. Pro: They might be friends and fear about their collegue's career.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.8.1.3.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.2. Pro: We can trust that climatologists are experts at determining whether climate change is occurring and what its long-term effects on the environment will be, but they are not experts on the economic or political consequences or what the costs of action are.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.2.1. Con: Economists in the [Economists' Statement on Climate Change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Climate_Change) agree that "preventive steps are justified" and that "the total benefits outweigh the total costs". As the [costs](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9) of fighting climate change are smaller than the [damages it causes](https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf).
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.1.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3. Con: Some believe climate science research may have been influenced by politics to favor climate change action.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.1. Pro: Findings published by the IPCC are likely to be politically biased because the IPCC is [funded by governments](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ipcc-who-are-they) who already subscribe to climate change theory. This goes against the fundamental principle of sceptical reasoning that should underpin scientific investigation.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.1.1. Pro: -> See discussion #3615: Science is political.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.1.2. Con: Providing policy input based on science is not necessarily political. The IPCC has stated in IPCC5 that if humans do not act globally to significantly reduce our CO2 emissions [within the next 12 years](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27082019/12-years-climate-change-explained-ipcc-science-solutions) we will not limit global warming to under 1.5C. That is neither political or policy, it is a statement based on current scientific knowledge. The appropriate policy responses by nations are left to governments.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.1.3. Con: The dominant political forces in the world \(including those that fund the IPCC\) are opposed to the IPCC findings, and ignore the IPCC recommendations.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.2. Con: Many politicians deny climate change to help their donors from the fossil fuel industry, [especially in the U.S.](http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-industry-influence-in-the-u-s/)
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.3. Pro: Pro-environmental individuals, such as climate change researchers urging action on climate change, are more likely to be [politically left-wing](http://www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/GeographyAndEnvironment/neumayer/pdf/Article%20in%20Ecological%20Economics%20\(Left-wing%20orientation\).pdf). This may politically skew their approach to climate change action.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.3.1. Con: This may confused cause and effect. That is, it is just as likely that the perceived need to take action on climate change motivates pro-environmental individuals to be politically left-wing as is that their political views motivates their views on climate change.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.4. Con: In a democracy, "politics" is just the will of the people. There's nothing wrong with people deciding climate change is a problem based on scientific research.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.3.4.1. Con: It's possible for the relationship between the will of the people and climate change research to be causally cyclical.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.4. Con: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.5.3.1.
1.7.6.8.1.2.1.5. Pro: The [Union of Concerned Scientists](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming#.WlpfxEtrzok) warns of climate change.
1.7.6.8.1.2.2. Con: There are many other causes that are much more likely to unify humanity.
1.7.6.8.1.2.2.1. Pro: People in the developing world feel it [unfair](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/dec/06/climate-change-rich-countries-doha) that the West has enriched itself using carbon emitting means, and now they are being told not to enrich themself by use of the same means.
1.7.6.8.1.2.2.2. Pro: There is almost nobody who doesn't believe in dementia, or disputes whether they are problems worth slowing. Curing dementia would thus be more likely to unify humanity
1.7.6.8.1.2.3. Con: A [non-trivial fraction of the population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country) don't believe in climate change, or at least don't believe it is as big a deal as it is being made out to be.
1.7.6.8.1.2.4. Con: Fighting climate change may divide humanity if states cannot agree on the best course of action, including who should implement various strategies and how much each state should contribute financially.
1.7.6.8.1.2.4.1. Con: -> See 1.7.6.1.
1.7.6.8.1.2.5. Pro: Fighting climate change is one problem the whole world could work together on, which brings a feeling of belonging and community with it.
1.7.6.8.1.2.6. Pro: As it is a global issue, a general "war on atmospheric carbon" could be the positive "common ground" beginning of cooperative world peace.
1.7.6.8.2. Pro: Acting on climate change has many benefits which are unrelated to the global climate.
1.7.6.8.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.8.1.
1.7.6.8.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.6.7.1.1.
1.7.6.8.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.7.1.1.
1.7.6.8.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.7.1.2.
1.7.6.8.2.5. Pro: -> See 1.6.7.1.1.2.
1.7.6.8.3. Pro: Lots of the problems mentioned are [directly or indirectly linked](http://www.unhcr.org/climate-change-and-disasters.html) to climate change. Consequences or causes of those issues can be intensified or boosted due to climate change.
1.7.6.8.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.8.4.
1.7.6.8.3.2. Pro: USAID speaks of environmental peace building to smoothen the effects of environmental change on conflict \([USAID, p. xii](https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/ClimateChangeConflictAnnex_2015%2002%2025%2C%20Final%20with%20date%20for%20Web.pdf)\).
1.7.6.8.3.3. Pro: For any chronic issue, it is usually more efficient to deal once for all against the cause of the issue, rather than deal forever with the consequences.
1.7.6.8.3.3.1. Con: It is quite wrong to say that climate change is the "cause" of all the listed issues. It may \(or may not\) make them worse, but all those issues existed well before "climate change".
1.7.6.8.3.4. Con: Access to energy has proven to be a good way to tackle many of the listed problems \([poverty,](https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/what-you-need-know-about-energy-and-poverty) [famine](https://www.devex.com/news/solar-power-sales-help-women-avoid-food-insecurity-in-yemen-94239), [disease](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4168575/), etc.\). And that energy was and still is mainly fossil fuels.
1.7.6.8.4. Con: Of course they are mutually exclusive - humanity only has so many resources and funds to fight battles to survive.
1.7.6.8.4.1. Con: Resources are not just financial. Resources comprise materials, human intelligence, imagination, organisation and above all, political will. If something is physically possible, it can be made financially possible.
1.7.6.8.5. Pro: Having limited resources does not mean you can only deal with one issue at a time.
1.7.6.8.5.1. Con: Nobody has stated you have to deal with one issue at a time, but the more issues you must deal with when there are finite resources, the less resources go to all the issues. This includes political, financial and emotional.
1.7.6.9. Pro: Millions of people still lack basic food and water security.
1.7.6.9.1. Con: The number of people facing hunger is drastically reducing, making hunger a problem that will soon be solved automatically.
1.7.6.9.1.1. Pro: Underdeveloped countries are [catching up](https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment) with the developed world in terms of the number of people facing undernourishment.
1.7.6.9.1.2. Pro: [Famine deaths](https://ourworldindata.org/famines) have reduced drastically over time.
1.7.6.9.1.3. Pro: On average [yields](https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture) are growing.
1.7.6.9.1.4. Con: According to the [FAO 2018 report](http://www.fao.org/3/i9553en/i9553en.pdf) on the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World: "New evidence continues to point to a rise in world hunger in recent years after a prolonged decline." This is partly attributed to "adverse climate events".
1.7.6.9.2. Pro: Some improvements in water management have been made in recent years. But they have come incrementally, at far too [slow](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/09/water-crisis-management-scarcity-energy-food/) a pace to address the problem effectively.
1.7.6.9.3. Pro: A month after the United Nations called for $4.4 billion for [famine prevention](http://www.ifpri.org/blog/strategies-preventing-recurring-famines-and-building-resilient-food-systems), only 10 percent of the needed funds have been mobilised to help 20 million people on the verge of starvation and death in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen. Agencies implementing emergency operations are scrambling for resources.
1.7.6.9.3.1. Con: The above article mentions climate change as a contributing factor to drought and famine, suggesting that funding the prevention of climate change will be necessary in order to prevent famine in the long-term.
1.7.6.10. Con: -> See 1.5.
1.7.7. Pro: Scientists have been [wrong before](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/27/these-scientific-theories-were-accepted-once-but-were-later-proven-wrong/) and so we should not make policy decisions based on what scientists advocate.
1.7.7.1. Con: The alternative is to ignore the most well-informed guidance available.
1.7.8. Pro: It will be much cheaper to "adapt" to climate changes, than to "fight" climate change.
1.7.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.6.7.1.
1.7.8.2. Con: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.2.1.
1.7.8.3. Pro: Reinforcing buildings against natural disaster can save tremendous amounts of money. Hurricane Harvey caused damages of [$180bn](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hurricane-harvey-180-billion-damage-more-than-katrina-sandy-texas-governor-a7927906.html%3famp).
1.7.8.3.1. Con: Tornado proof homes cost around [20-30%](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687404815000395) more than regular homes. Given the construction expenditure in the US of [$1.23 trillion](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-01/u-s-construction-spending-rose-in-2017-by-least-in-six-years) in 2017 this is around $250 bn for the US and for Tornados alone.
1.7.8.4. Con: -> See 1.2.1.
1.7.8.5. Pro: Humans have adapted to live in every part of the world, including deserts.
1.7.8.5.1. Con: A key factor in habitability is "wet bulb" temperature, which accounts for humidity. Habitable areas that are hotter are generally also drier. Climate change drives up wet-bulb temperature everywhere, [reducing the area that is habitable](https://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552).
1.7.8.5.2. Con: -> See 1.7.6.1.3.9.4.
1.7.8.6. Pro: It would be more beneficial to society in general if we put efforts into adaptation, because other climate change \(not caused by humans\) can happen - so we solve two problems in one go \(human induced climate change, and non-human induced climate change\).
1.7.8.6.1. Con: This would only follow if climate change caused by humans and climate change not caused by humans were equally likely to cause long term harm. But there is no reason to believe that this is the case.
1.7.8.7. Con: Extinction and disrupted ecosystems cannot be "adapted".
1.7.8.7.1. Con: Extinction and species disruption happen consistently throughout the history of the Earth. It is a part of nature.
1.7.8.7.1.1. Con: The [1M imminent extinctions cited by the IPBES](https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment) are driven by human activity, and are putting human civilization at risk.
1.7.8.7.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.7.5.
1.7.8.8. Con: The economic cost of the damages caused by climate change as well as adaption costs may be higher than the cost of preventing climate change.
1.7.8.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.2.1.
1.7.8.8.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.
1.7.8.8.3. Pro: The costs of putting prices on carbon emissions are affordable for consumers.
1.7.8.8.3.1. Pro: A proposed carbon tax in Canada of $50 per ton would translate to [11 cents per liter of gasoline](https://globalnews.ca/news/3464739/carbon-tax-cost-households-heat-gas-driving/) at the pump if all costs were passed down to the consumer.
1.7.9. Con: Market forces indicate humans should fight climate change.
1.7.9.1. Con: Fighting climate change cuts profits and, thus, cannot be in businesses' interest.
1.7.9.1.1. Con: Human interest is not solely about gaining money. Therefore human interest is not business interest.
1.7.9.1.1.1. Pro: Humans are motivated by fame and prestige.
1.7.9.1.1.1.1. Pro: [Prestige](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23046602) seems to be a unique characteristic of our species, and something that is universal to all human cultures. Unlike other primates, we differentiate social status in terms of prestige.
1.7.9.1.1.1.2. Pro: [Status](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150506094925.htm) is something that all people crave and covet, even if they don't realize it.
1.7.9.1.1.2. Pro: Humans are motivated by reproduction.
1.7.9.1.1.3. Pro: Human interest can relate to a large range of things. A soldier's motivation is not monetary; they are motivated to die for their country, for glory, and for national reputation.
1.7.9.1.2. Con: The mortgage-lending collapse that started in 2007 was an example of business choosing short-term gains over self-interest. Looking back on the collapse, Alan Greenspan said, ["I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms".](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan)
1.7.9.1.3. Con: [New Climate Economy, a 2018 report shows](https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/executive-summary/) that tackling climate change could create $26 trillion in economic benefits by 2030, create 65 million new low carbon jobs and save 750,000 premature deaths compared to business as usual.
1.7.9.1.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.3.3.
1.7.9.1.5. Con: -> See 1.4.5.3.6.
1.7.9.2. Pro: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.2.1.
1.7.9.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.3.3.3.
1.7.9.4. Pro: Fighting climate change could [create](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/runaway-climate-change-2030-report_us_5b8ecba3e4b0162f4727a09f) 65 million new jobs globally.
1.7.9.5. Con: Market forces in markets relating to climate change are distorted and cannot be taken as a clear indicator.
1.7.9.5.1. Pro: Greenhouse gas emissions do not carry a pricetag.
1.7.9.5.1.1. Con: -> See 1.4.5.3.3.4.2.
1.7.9.5.2. Pro: Many energy forms receive subsidies.
1.7.9.5.3. Pro: There are state-owned energy companies that distort the market.
1.7.9.6. Pro: -> See 1.7.9.1.3.
1.7.9.7. Con: -> See 1.3.6.4.4.1.
1.7.9.8. Pro: -> See 1.6.1.2.
1.7.9.9. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.3.
1.7.9.10. Pro: The 'climate change' industry has created many jobs in diverse industries \(e.g. solar, wind, automotive, etc.\).
1.7.9.10.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.5.3.1.
1.7.9.10.2. Pro: Solar and wind devices can be installed in remote areas, which relieves population pressure on cities as well as creating jobs in these remote areas. So the benefit is environmentally multiplied.[cisl.cam.ac.uk](https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/resources/publication-pdfs/decentralised-energy.pdf) "pp.8, 21, 22"
1.7.10. Con: Climate change is an existential threat to human civilization, and perhaps even human life on this planet. Because of this, there is no higher priority to spend our money on \(except, perhaps, other existential threats\).
1.7.10.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.6.
1.7.10.2. Con: Nuclear war is a greater and [more immanent threat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls) than climate change.
1.7.10.3. Con: Deadly pathogenic communicable diseases are a greater threat than climate change.
1.7.10.3.1. Pro: According to this [report](https://www.evernote.com/shard/s6/client/snv?noteGuid=3aed03d9-53a5-458a-9bf6-ff2c6eb32ad4&noteKey=f543c5f7e101ee11b9d4e3673c00b644&sn=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evernote.com%2Fshard%2Fs6%2Fsh%2F3aed03d9-53a5-458a-9bf6-ff2c6eb32ad4%2Ff543c5f7e101ee11b9d4e3673c00b644&title=Economic%2BImpacts%2Bof%2BClimate%2BChange), the average person will lose 1.3% of their income if the average temperature goes up 2.5C. That is the do-nothing scenario \(RCP 8.5\) predicted for 30 years from now.
1.7.10.3.2. Pro: The [IMF predicts](http://://www.investopedia.com/special-economic-impact-of-pandemics-4800597) that there will be a 3% loss of income this year alone from COVID.
1.7.11. Pro: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.1.1.8.2.
1.8. Pro: -> See 1.7.6.8.1.2.